c e: nce s

Tr

Tea

Thrans

iCo‐Dire

A

Was

gleFu

he Seformn thectors:

Alleghen

shington

unded

eniomathe Li Timoth

ny Colleg

n College

Asses

or Ctive iberhy Sche

ge, Augu

e, The C

ssmen

aps Expral Aermer &

ustana C

College o

nt Proj

tonperie Arts& Simon

College,

of Woos

ect

e: ences n Gray

ter

es

Blank page

The Senior Capstone: Transformative Experiences in the Liberal Art

CONTENTS

Introduction

Participants List

Part 1: Statements of Research Findings and Recommendations

External Report Narrative: Capstones as a High Impact Practice

Internal Report Narrative: Synthesis of Findings

Part 2: Descriptions of the Capstone Programs at Participating Institutions

Summary Notes: The Capstone Programs of Allegheny College, Augustana College, College of Wooster, and Washington College

Narrative descriptions from each campus:

Allegheny Augustana College of Wooster Washington College

Summary Notes on the Department Policies and Administration Survey

Summary Notes on the Capstone Description Survey

Part 3: Campus Reports and Improvement Projects

Reports from each campus of their reactions to the data and capstone improvement projects they intend to pursue as a result of the project


Part 4: Senior and Mentor Surveys: Statistical Analysis of Responses

Quantitative Results of the Senior and Mentor Surveys

Tables

Appendices

Part 5: Senior Post‐Capstone Survey Comments – Content Analysis

Analysis of Student Responses to the Post‐Capstone Open‐Ended Questions

Tables

Part 6: Mentor Post‐Capstone Survey Comments – Content Analysis

Analysis of Mentor Responses to the Post‐Capstone Open‐Ended Questions

Tables

Part 7: Alumni Survey

Alumni Survey Overview and General Analysis of Results

HEDS 2010 Alumni Survey, Additional Capstone Impact Question

Appendices

Part 8: Focus Group Comprehensive Summary

Comprehensive Summary Report Methodology Focus Group Questions for Students, Faculty and Support Staff

Part 9: Postscript – Thoughts on Conducting a Multi‐School Assessment Project

Part 10: General Appendices

Grant Proposal: “Transformative Experiences in the Liberal Arts”

Wabash Visit Note (Notes from a review of the data with Charlie Blaich)

Fall 2011 Conference Proceeding Notes

Blank Copies of Survey Instruments

• Pre‐Capstone Student Survey • Pre‐Capstone Faculty Survey • Post‐Capstone Student Survey • Post‐Capstone Mentor Survey • Departmental Policies and Administration Survey • Capstone Description Survey

Introduction

Purpose of the Grant

The four private liberal arts colleges in the Teagle Capstone study (Allegheny College, Augustana College, The College of Wooster, and Washington College, referred to here as the “Teagle Capstone Colleges”) have capstone experiences that are required of all students.1 This is a significant commitment on the part of our institutions, our faculty and staff, and, of course, our students. But it is a commitment made with the firm belief that these experiences provide distinctive benefits above and beyond those of a traditional course.

It is this context that provided the motivation for and structure of our project. From the beginning, the goal has been for each institution to develop a deeper understanding its own capstone program, including the departmental and institutional resources required, the learning and developmental gains for students, and the impact on capstone mentors. Of course, we were also keen to learn about the capstone as experienced by those who participate in it. What leads to a successful capstone experience? What leads to an unsuccessful experience? What do the answers to these two questions suggest about where we should make changes? In short, the project sought to determine if our belief in the value of a required capstone experience is justified? As the remainder of this report will detail, the answer is a resounding “Yes!”, with acknowledgements that each institution could make changes that would lead to even stronger capstone programs.

Studying the practices and measuring selected outcomes of our capstone programs has had multiple benefits for our institutions and, we hope, will be of value in contributing to ongoing conversations about capstones as a “high impact” educational experiences. As the benefits of capstones entail significant commitments of resources we also consider questions of costs, efficiency, and best practices for capstone programs.

Because of the potential sensitivity of presenting data in the fine detail provided below, the Teagle Capstone Colleges are identified by aliases: Red, Tan, White, and Yellow. Three of the institutions had a universal capstone requirement in place for the three graduating classes, while Tan College is only currently implementing a universal senior capstone program and did not have it in place for these classes.

Research and Analytic Questions

The project sought to answer the following questions, both generally in terms of capstones required of all seniors and more specifically in term of the capstone program implementations on the campuses of the four participating institutions. The data and analysis presented in this report provides our answers to these questions.

1. What is the impact of the capstone experience on outcomes leading to lifelong learning? What is the perceived impact one, five and five‐plus years after graduation?

1 Each institution has its own name for the senior experience, so the use of ‘capstone’ here is a convenience. The experience seniors have on our campuses goes beyond that of a traditional “capstone course”.

Specifically we wished to determine the degree to which the capstone experience contributed to the following learning and developmental outcomes.

Being able to plan and conduct an intellectually demanding project Creative and critical thinking/problem solving skills Independence in thought, action and initiative Tolerance for obstacles, ambiguities; perseverance Time management skills Leadership/teamwork Acceptance of responsibility

Developing an understanding of one’s self and one’s interests and capabilities Career path clarification and commitment Development of an interest in research Development of an interest in higher level cognition Growth of intellectual self‐confidence Critical reflection on one’s own perspective

Understanding of the nature of research and how knowledge is constructed More sophisticated understanding of research practice in a discipline More sophisticated epistemological understanding of how things are known Awareness of the interrelationship of knowledge Valuing different points of view

2. How does the capstone experience benefit the student and the faculty mentor?

3. What are the similarities and the differences in how our capstone programs are formulated?

4. What resources (programs, structures, and personnel) are our colleges providing to support their capstone programs? What is the opportunity cost of our capstones?

5. How do faculty, students, and other college constituencies perceive and experience the capstone?

6. How do students experience the capstone? What is the range of capstone experiences for our students, and what are the conditions and practices that result in the most positive capstone experiences?

Research Methodology

This project applied quantitative and qualitative methods in three phases. In the first phase we used surveys to gather mostly quantitative summary measures, pre‐ and post‐capstone from the student and the student’s mentor, supplemented by textual analysis of responses to open‐ended questions about the student’s and mentor’s capstone experiences. These findings were used to guide the second phase, which involved a more in‐depth qualitative study consisting of focus groups with students, faculty and others involved with our institutions’ capstone programs. The third phase consists of “closing the loop” by using the project data to identify

campus projects that would improve our capstone programs. The projects are described in this report. Implementation of these projects must await discussion on each campus.

Acknowledgments

We are very grateful for the generous support of this project from the Teagle Foundation, without which this project would not have been possible. In addition, we are appreciative of the permissions granted from the Higher Education Research Institute, National Survey of Student Engagement, and Center of Inquiry in the Liberal Arts to use selected items from their national surveys, and to the Higher Education Data Sharing consortium for the use of their Alumni Survey. Many individuals contributed their time and expertise to this project as listed on the roster of participants, and a large part of any success achieved has come from the fusing of their talent and efforts. These include faculty, deans, and institutional research/ assessment directors, and project consultants. Particular thanks are due to faculty steering committee chairs for guiding the campus efforts, to the Institutional Research/Assessment directors for the huge task of managing the surveys and assembling the data for our databases, to the consultants on the project, Dr. David Lopatto, Grinnell College, and Dr. Charles Blaich, Center of Inquiry in the Liberal Arts, Wabash College, for their expert advice, to Bruce Colwell for leading the focus groups at the four campuses and to Dr. Timothy Arbisi‐Kelm for the initial textual analysis of the open‐ended comments of seniors and mentors. Finally, special thanks go to Allegheny College and College of Wooster for so ably hosting our two project workshops.

Participant List ‐ Planning Grant through Completion Allegheny College Linda DeMeritt, Dean of the College Marian Sherwood, Director of Institutional Research Ben Slote, Steering Committee Co‐Chair, Associate Dean, Department of English Patricia Rutledge, Department of Psychology Catharina Coenen, Department of Biology Shaun Murphree, Department of Chemistry, Biochemistry Augustana College Jeff Abernathy, Dean of the College (former) Pareena Lawrence, Dean of the College Mark Salisbury, Director of Institutional Research Tim Schermer, Director of Institutional Research (former), Project co‐director, data

analyst Ellen Hay, Steering Committee Co‐Chair, Department of Communications Studies,

Interim Dean the College Kathy Jakielski, Steering Committee Co‐Chair, Department of Communications Sciences

and Disorders Timothy Arbisi‐Kelm, Department of Communications Sciences and Disorders Todd Cleveland, Department of History Bob Haak, Center for Vocational Reflection (former) Jason Koontz, Department of Biology Carla Tracy, Library Director College of Wooster Iain Crawford, Vice President for Academic Affairs (former) Carolyn Newton, Provost Theresa Ford, Director of Educational Assessment Simon Gray, Steering Committee Chair, Project Co‐Director, Department of Mathematics

and Computer Science Michelle Camou, Department of Political Science Brian Cope, Department of Spanish Dean Fraga, Department of Biology Michelle Johnson, Department of Communication Peter Mowrey, Department of Music Elizabeth Schiltz, Department of Philosophy Washington College Christopher Ames, Provost and Dean of the College John Taylor, Interim Provost and Dean of the College

Dale Trusheim, Institutional Research Kevin McKillop, Steering Committee Chair, Department of Psychology Susan Vowels, Department of Business Management Austin Lobo, Department of Mathematics Consultants David Lopatto, Department of Psychology, Grinnell College Charles Blaich, Center of Inquiry in the Liberal Arts, Wabash College Bruce Colwell, Teagle Scholar, Center of Inquiry in the Liberal Arts

blank page

PART 1: PROJECT RESULTS The first two narratives in this section are general statements about the results of the project that draw on the data and other material in Part 2 and Parts 4 to 8. They are somewhat redundant as the first is a statement of results for internal use and presumes some familiarity with the background material in other sections, while the second is a restatement of the results for a general audience. The third item is a list of possible improvement projects suggested by the results of the study.

Capstone Project – Synthesis of Findings The Capstone as a High Impact Practice Potential Improvement Projects

Part 1, Page: 1

blank page

Part 1, Page: 2

Synthesis of Findings Page 1

Capstone Project – Synthesis of Findings

INTRODUCTION

Here we provide a synthesis of our findings from the qualitative and quantitative data collected from the senior and mentor pre‐ and post‐capstone surveys completed in 2009/10 and 2010/11 (this includes statistical analysis of the numerical survey results and content analysis of answers to open‐ended questions), reports of focus groups of students, faculty and support staff at each campus, and results of surveys of alumni in classes two, five, and ten years out. The detailed project data summarized here is available in Parts 4 to 8 of this report.

This summary also incorporates thoughts from the discussions held at the fall 2011 meeting attended by the project consultants, the project co‐directors, and the campus working groups, including the chief academic officers, institutional research or educational assessment directors, faculty steering committee chairs, and faculty members from the four schools. Notes from that discussion are included in the appendices (Part 10).

This summary is a starting point for answering the project questions and responses that were posted on‐line as preparation for the fall 2011 conference. Those questions concerned three key areas:

1. What are the costs, including opportunity costs, for students, faculty, and our institutions? How significant are they? Do the costs outweigh the benefits? “Costs” here is intended as a broad term incorporating not just monetary costs, but also such things as time, effort, stress, missed alternate opportunities, etc.

2. Are there material differences by capstone type or type of student? (GPA, gender underrepresented, minority, low‐income family, first‐generation, academic division, major)

3. What are the implications for practice: What are the good or essential features driving the benefits? What makes for good preparation? What makes for good mentoring? What policies, structures and practices for the capstone on each of our campuses maximize benefits while minimizing costs?

The discussion below of these questions makes brief references to supporting data, such as survey items and scales. Changes in pre/post survey scales are reported with a “+” or ”‐“ to indicate the direction of change. Only differences by student groups that were especially notable are mentioned. Further details on the breakdowns by school, GPA group, major, and gender are given in the tables of results for our surveys. Differences by socio‐economic status were generally not significant and, therefore, not commented on below. To distinguish between faculty and student scales, “Fac” has been added to the references to faculty scales. In the presentation below of items as bulleted lists, the evidence from the data has been cited in parentheses.

Part 1, Page: 3


WHAT ARE THE COSTS AND BENEFITS FOR STUDENTS, MENTORS, DEPARTMENTS, AND INSTITUTIONS?

This cost/benefit question is broken down below based on the impacts of capstones on students, mentors, academic departments, and the institution. An attempt has been made to list items in descending order of perceived significance, but this is largely subjective.

Student Costs and Benefits

Student Costs – Based on Part 5, Table Q1‐1. The list of student costs below is primarily based on the analysis of student responses to a survey question asking the student to describe positive or negative aspects of their capstone as presented in Part 5, Table Q1‐1. A review of the response topics leads to a judgment that most students would endorse the capstone as producing beneficial outcomes exceeding their “costs” from investing time and effort or forgoing other opportunities. Of the nearly 2,600 coded units for the responses, 62.5% were positive, 37.5% were negative. Below are negative areas that would be considered “costs” (as opposed to, for instance, complaints about capstone structures or facilities):

• Stress (capstones with comment– 11%; some stress may come from simply needing to work harder on capstone projects ‐ “worked harder on their capstone than on a regular course”, m=4.37 out of 5; 84% of seniors agreed or strongly agreed that the capstone was more stressful than a regular course)

• Opportunity costs – time to work on regular courses, other educational opportunities, co‐curricular activities, or other personal interests and activities, including time to apply for graduate school or jobs (capstones with comment– 7%)

• Failure to achieve goals – Despite the effort expended the student fell short of achieving one or more goals mentioned – improving a skill, career preparation, self‐understanding, etc. (capstones with comment – 3%). Whether this is considered more a cost or a lack of benefit, either way it tips the cost/benefit balance towards the cost side.

The three areas above were the dominant themes in student negative comments relating to “costs”, as evidenced by the percentage of the 1,150 capstones with any comment on that topic. The percentages given here are of capstone for which the student provided a comment, not the total number of capstones. It is not clear to what degree commented capstones are representative of all capstones.

The time requirements for capstones are generally higher than for a regular course. Students report working about 14 hours/week on their capstones and many capstones are scheduled for multiple terms, have higher credit hour loads than regular courses, and some include summer research. While the high expectations, duration, and time requirements contribute to the benefits of capstones (NSSE and the Wabash National

Part 1, Page: 4


Study, for instance, document the benefits of “time‐on‐task”), they are not without costs, for students as indicated above.

Stress, in particular, was explicitly noted for about 11% of student capstones for which there was a comment relating to the positive / negative aspects of capstones; a percentage high enough to indicate this is a significant part of the capstone experience for many students. Some specific stress‐related issues that emerged in the comments include unclear capstone policies or guidelines, delays in obtaining resources (such as library materials), delays in getting feedback from the mentor, or interruptions due to student or family health problems. Clear policies and expectations for capstones, and a good working relationship with the adviser can mitigate some student stress. There is some evidence in the correlations with expecting stress that concern about avoiding failure is particularly stress‐inducing for lower GPA students, while for higher GPA stress tends to come more from the perceived challenge of the capstone.

That the capstone is done independently by each student, requiring greater responsibility for success or failure, and is also a high stakes requirement for graduation makes it a source of greater stress than a typical course. Some campuses may add to this through an ethos of an expectation that the capstone is akin to master’s level work. On balance, the evidence suggests that the stress is manageable for most students and overcoming the challenge is often a source of pride. There were 14 capstones, about 1%, where the student appeared to report extreme or debilitating stress, another 2% reported a level of stress high enough to significantly interfere with other courses or activities. On the other hand, in many cases when stress was mentioned by students as a negative aspect of their capstone, they added a disclaimer that it was worth it and a natural part of the experience.

The opportunity costs from working on capstones rather than time on other courses, co‐curricular activities, or personal activities was noted by about 7% of seniors as another significant “cost”. Data from our alumni survey, however, does not generally indicate our seniors are less involved in co‐curricular activities, but does point to study abroad as a notable area where there may be a trade‐off with capstones. Comparative data from the alumni survey relating to the level of activity in various areas as an undergraduate (not necessarily as seniors) suggests that in comparison to peer institutions, our graduates are significantly more involved in independent study and faculty research, significantly less involved in study abroad, modestly less involved in intramural sports and religious groups, but about as involved in many other activities, including student government, intercollegiate athletics, performing arts/music, political organizations, community service, social fraternities and sororities, and internships. Alumni agree that the capstone was more intellectually challenging than a regular course (68%), and that they developed more academically through their capstone than through a regular course (56%). On balance, our data (particularly alumni data) suggest that the benefits outweigh the opportunity costs for most students, but the opportunity costs may be significant for students with interests in other valuable opportunities, notably study abroad.

Part 1, Page: 5


The third area on the list, expending effort without achieving a goal, is somewhat an imposed construct in that the original student comments only noted not achieving a goal as a negative feature of the capstone. For purposes of this cost/benefit analysis this is being interpreted as a “cost” because of the effort expended with the student asserting a lack of benefit.

Student Benefits The benefits described here are items students attributed to their capstone experience in survey comments or were observed in survey scale changes, and are generally above or beyond benefits students gain from “regular” courses. Mentor reports of developmental benefits were generally consistent with student reports.

Although there are overlaps among the categories, we believe that the distinction used below between academic, personal, and professional benefits is generally useful.

Academic benefits

• interest in lifelong learning (+Needcognlite; +IntelEngagement, pos. influence on interest in ideas, m=4.26 out of 5)

• learning effectively on one’s own (58% “very much” from alumni survey; learning effectively on my own, m=4.32 out of 5; CapcontDev (a post measure only) m=4.11 out of 5; +ExhibitScholarlySkills; +RatingAcadAbil; +RatingIndepVoice, +FacIntelEngagement)

• research – enjoyment/interest in research (+ResearchOrient, 6% of comments for student question Q3)

• research – development of research skills (CapContDev m=4.11, +FacEffProjMgt) • critical thinking skills development – analysis, synthesis, problem solving (53% “very

much” from alumni survey; CapContDev m=4.11; +FacCrThinkSkills) • communication skills development – writing and oral presentation skills (57% “very

much” for writing from alumni survey; CapContDev m=4.11; +FacCommSkills) • ability to think creatively (45% “very much” from alumni survey) • project management skills for an academic project (+ProjMgt; +FacEffProjectMgt) • general disciplinary knowledge; learning a lot (CapSuccessful m=4.03 out of 5) • becoming “expert” in an the area of the project and presenting findings to others in

an “expert” role (noted in student comments) • integration of ideas, using multiple perspectives Data suggests this benefit is less

broad than hypothesized. While true of some capstones, integration of ideas, except for multi‐disciplinary capstones, appears to be limited to ideas within the discipline. General use of multiple perspectives was reported during to be less during the capstone than during courses in the prior year. ( – (decline) for MultPerspectives)

Academic benefits are an area of significant growth for students. The numerical scales of our surveys of seniors show that the vast majority of students report that the capstone was a positive experience for them overall and that they developed a variety of academic skills during the capstone. They report using many academic skills more during

Part 1, Page: 6


the capstone than during regular courses, including research skills, critical thinking, and communication skills. A scale that reflects exhibiting academic skills during the capstone was a strong correlate of students’ rating the capstone as successful. Students reported gaining an enjoyment of research and of effortful intellectual work in general (Need for Cognition Lite scale). Their ratings of their own academic abilities also increased. Although some capstones require the student to integrate ideas across disciplines or to consider diverse perspectives, our evidence is that most capstones are narrowly defined in‐depth experiences in the discipline rather than integrative.

Perhaps surprisingly, of all the above benefits, student comments noted project management with the most frequency. Students often associated the gains in project management with the capstone being a large scale, challenging project executed largely by the student (independence). Also, the capstone seems to provide many students with benefits associated with becoming an “expert” in their chosen topic area, including a sense of pride, accomplishment, and enjoyment from presenting findings as both discoverer and expert.

Developing an interest in lifelong learning is both an academic and personal benefit, but is listed here because of its academic importance. Lifelong learning is augmented by development of skills and interests, both of which have been noted above. Additionally there are gains in self‐confidence and self‐authorship, as noted below.

Disciplinary knowledge in the project area is certainly developed during a typical capstone, and gaining knowledge was cited as a positive aspect of the capstone, but, somewhat surprisingly, when students were asked to comment on what would be of value to them after graduation, disciplinary knowledge was cited much less frequently than more general practical and developmental benefits, the most cited being project and time management, writing skill development, development of research skills and career/graduate school preparation. These are skills that are readily most transferable to a wide range of tasks.

Personal development benefits • learning to manage a large project (planning, organizing, administering) (64% “very

much” from alumni survey – largest percentage among items asked; most frequently cited in item count for senior comments; +ProjMgt; +FacEffProjectMgt)

• better self‐understanding of interests and abilities (89% “agree” from alumni; +RatingAcadAbil; +RatingIndepVoice; 4.4% of student comments to pos/neg aspects; generally strong reports of better self‐understanding in student comments to the open ended question of what they learned about themselves as a result of the capstone experience.)

• establishing a positive relationship with a faculty mentor (alumni survey comments – third most cited benefit)

• independence – self‐reliance, self‐direction (+ evidenced independent thinking; + RatingAcadAbil; + confidence in own opinions)

• confidence in one’s intellectual and personal abilities (47% capstone contributed “very much” from alumni; + RatingAcadAbil; + RatingLeadCollabSkills; +ProjMgt; +ExhibScholarlySKills; high CapSuccessful)

Part 1, Page: 7


• persistence (+ faculty item: persists when faced with conceptual and practical difficulties)

• independent voice and motivation – understanding that effort can be rewarding (+ FacIntelEngagement)

• developing or enhancing time‐management skill (+ ProjMgt, + FacEffProjectMgt) • leadership skills, including presentation skills, social confidence (+ RatingCollabSkills)

Key features of the capstone are the independence, challenge, and self‐authorship requirements, which drive the above list of benefits. The scale and duration of the project is part of this, as is acting independently and taking personal responsibility for the project (with macro level mentor guidance, of course, but not, generally, micromanagement), the actual experience of conducting inquiry or research (managing the project, solving problems, persisting through difficulties), and taking a personal position and explaining it in a coherent manner in a thesis and/or large paper and through oral presentations.

Establishing a positive relationship with the mentor is listed because alumni comments indicate the student/mentor relationship is a very significant component of the capstone experience, and when positive, they feel it is an ongoing benefit. Indeed, alumni, when asked about what aspect of the capstone experience had the most beneficial impact on them, cited a positive relationship with the mentor as the third most frequent category, after project management and a sense of accomplishment. On the other hand, seniors’ comments on what they thought would be most valuable to them after graduation mentioned the relationship with the mentor in only about 1% of the comments. Clearly, alumni, looking back, have a different perspective. In contrast, seniors’ comments on the mentor relationship were noted predominantly in response to the question about the positive/negative aspects of the capstone experience, which suggests that, instead of a long term benefit, seniors view the mentor relationship more narrowly in terms of the direct help they received for their capstone. In that regard, 16% of comments reported positively on the mentor: the mentor was great overall, helpful, supportive, showed interest in the student’s project and gave good feedback. Unfortunately, in about 11% of comments, other students felt their mentor was unhelpful, unavailable, gave poor feedback, had unclear expectations, or was uninterested.

Career/Professional Benefits • better understanding of one’s skills, abilities and interests (89% “agree”, from

alumni), and as a consequence, more informed career or graduate school choices (career/grad school clarification as benefit, 9% of comments, Q2 from senior survey)

• preparation for graduate school or employment (77% “agree” from alumni survey; CapSuccessful m=4.02; better prepared m=3.92; 12% of comments, student Q3)

• graduate school admission or employment hiring advantage (from mentor recommendations or using the capstone product as part of a portfolio)

• publications/products that demonstrate abilities or that launches a career

Part 1, Page: 8


We originally hypothesized that the capstone experience would contribute significantly to seeking more advanced degrees and careers involving higher academic skills. Our data suggests, however, that students have largely made these decisions prior to the capstone and that significant changes occurred only for a minority of students. Helping “clarify my career or graduate school objectives” had a relatively low mean of 3.56. Also rather than a shift toward more advanced degrees, some churning occurs, with some students raising advanced degree expectations while others lowered them, producing little net overall change in percentages. Nonetheless, this is the positive result if the churning that goes on is due, as seems reasonable, to students’ more informed appraisals of their interests and abilities as a result of their research experiences.

Several specific career/graduate school benefits were noted in student comments ‐ the 1:1 mentoring common with capstones makes the mentor a more powerful advocate for the student when writing letters of recommendation; some students are able to use their capstone product as part of a portfolio presented for graduate school admission or hiring interviews; and publications or contacts made during the capstone may also be of value.

Overall Cost/Benefit for Students By way of a summary assessment, our analysis notes a number of benefits and costs for students that are particularly tied to the unique character of a capstone and we believe suggests that the benefits for students are substantial, and outweigh the extra costs relative to regular courses. A fundamental point is that the goals faculty have set and the benefits from the capstone reported by students are generally different than those for a regular course, expanding beyond disciplinary expertise with a greater emphasis on personal development. The evidence for this is strong from our seniors and faculty, and is also corroborated by our alumni survey: 51% of alumni thought their capstone was more valuable than additional courses in the major (36% as valuable, 13% less valuable), 64% more valuable than more courses outside the major, and 56% more valuable than more participation in co‐curricular activities. While these percentages are favorable for the capstone, they are not as high as expected, suggesting that cost/benefit analysis should be an ongoing consideration as capstone policies and structures are considered. (It is possible that alumni were somewhat confused by the question’s wording. To avoid a positive bias toward the capstone we used an inverted question form. For each of several other educational opportunities (X), we asked alumni, “Was X more or less valuable than your capstone?”; rather than a perhaps more natural wording, “Was your capstone more or less valuable than X?”, where the lead comparative item was consistently the capstone.)

On another issue, our student data supports the use of capstones as a universal requirement. The breadth of benefits noted above are achievable and reported by all types of students, including students in all academic divisions and of all GPA levels. In particular, students’ ratings of their capstone as successful and of the capstone’s contribution to development were only weakly correlated with pre‐capstone college GPAs (0.06 and 0.04, respectively). Some comments suggested that capstones gave

Part 1, Page: 9


weaker students an opportunity to blossom. Conversely, some students who performed well in regular courses struggled with their capstone.

Mentor Costs and Benefits – Part 6, Table Mentor Q1

Our data source for most of these items is the mentor responses to Q1 on the mentor post‐capstone survey, which asks about the positive or negative aspects of the capstone for the mentor, and which is discussed in Part 6 with reference to the tally of response topics in Table Mentor Q1. Below, where relevant, we give counts of the number of times a topic occurred in that count. For reference, even though the question was about the positives/negatives for the mentor, of the 1,923 coded units, only 641 were coded as relating to the mentor’s experience directly. The rest were comments about the student or the student’s project. Of the 641 about their own experience, 440 (69%) were positive.

Mentor Costs • frustration from the additional work and the emotional toll that accompanies

mentoring students who are poorly prepared, unmotivated, and/or unresponsive to feedback (10‐12% of capstones)

• workload (n=39), particularly if the capstone was outside the mentor’s area of expertise (n=22) or not reflected adequately in institutional load formulas (n=8). Numerical results from a GLM suggest that the extent alignment of the capstone with the mentor’s area of expertise varied by school and academic division. For two schools the alignment appeared greater for the natural science.

• time/effort to develop mentoring skills required of capstones • time from research, other duties – an underlying issue is faculty identity and what

faculty members believe is part of their duties and what will contribute to a successful career

• stress from feeling responsible for the student’s performance and the quality of the product; high stakes of not passing a student

Mentor Benefits • exposure to new knowledge/ideas (n=199) • pleasure of working 1‐1 or generally collaborating with students (n=140) • enjoyment of seeing students develop (n=42) • development of advising/mentoring skills (n=38) • advancing the mentor’s own research projects (n=15) • continuing professional academic relationships with students as alumni (not

mentioned on this survey, but a benefit that might be anticipated from the indicated development of student/mentor relationships)

The summary conclusion from the comments of mentors in our surveys and focus groups is that the great majority of faculty members support the capstone program because they see it as a positive experience for students. When given the opportunity to

Part 1, Page: 10


comment, mentors were more inclined to comment on student success (or problems) than they were on how the capstone affected them personally.

After removing comments about the student, mentor comments on how the capstone affected them as the mentor are mixed with 69% positive and 31% negative. The two top positives are the experience of working individually with students and exposure to new knowledge or ideas. The workload issue is an enduring problem, however, and a significant subtheme was the burden of having to learn about a topic outside their area of expertise. Also, while mentors enjoy working with the majority of their advisees, mentors are frustrated with the quality of work or the effort/motivation in 10‐12% of capstones. Specific areas of frustration include students who lacked skill in writing, critical thinking, or project management, who missed meetings, didn’t respond to feedback, didn’t meet project deadlines, or needed to be micromanaged.

Academic Department Costs and Benefits

Departmental Costs • opportunity cost of the loss of regular courses in the major to make room for the

capstone • administration, monitoring, and assessment efforts • space, equipment, and supplies

Departmental Benefits • feedback on students providing a more informed assessment of the curriculum • getting to know majors individually • gives focus/rational for courses in the major; motivates majors • encourages peer interactions among majors (more or less, depending on structure)

The administrative costs, although certainly a consideration, did not emerge as issues in our focus groups and probably are seen as routine departmental business. On the other hand, to know majors individually and assess their performance on the capstone is significant in helping departments assess and revise their curriculum and pedagogy.

Institutional Costs and Benefits

Institutional Costs • higher dollar cost per credit hour than regular courses (data from two schools

estimates this at about double) • higher faculty time per student credit hour (PostFac35, mean and median total hours

per week per student about 3 and 2, respectively) • increased need for facilities and extra support services, e.g. library, information

technology, writing centers, peer mentors, student workspace, lab space, equipment, specialized software.

• direct financial support for individual student projects (e.g., through a grant program) • general administrative overhead

Part 1, Page: 11


• mentor training time and costs • cost of celebrations • opportunity costs associated with defining the institutional culture and focusing

limited resources. These may include how students are recruited, and how they are prepared in general education and departmental curricula. Trade‐offs may be needed with other desirable programs such as internships, foreign study, and student co‐curricular activities.

A universal capstone requirement necessitates a major commitment of resources largely because capstones are based on customizing the experience for individual students, which is generally more costly in terms of faculty time and support services. Moreover, to the extent the capstone is a major component of the undergraduate degree, it may take both institutional, faculty, and student time and resources away from other opportunities.

Institutional Benefits • provides a focus/goal for the general education curriculum ‐ motivates preparatory

work on writing, critical thinking, literature searches, and learning research and time management techniques, etc.

• culminating, senior‐level feedback on students ‐ assessment of the general curriculum as well as the departmental curriculum.

• helps some students gain graduate school admission through recommendations and capstone products. Documented by several student comments. There are a few institutional costs or benefits we speculate are possible, but that our data does not provide evidence for. These might be investigated in further research:

• Does it increase student satisfaction with college or instruction in general? This was not evident in our data generally. Instead, satisfaction generally started high and remained high, but didn’t increase from pre‐ to post‐capstone. For Tan, which is new to capstone mentoring, satisfaction had a small decline. Student comments on the relationship with the mentor are strongly positive, but negative for about 10‐12% of capstones. Our alumni satisfaction measures are a bit higher compared to HEDS peer colleges, but not at a statistically significant level.

• Is it a fund raising advantage among alumni or in seeking grants? Inconclusive. Our alumni reported contributing to the annual fund less frequently than HEDS peers, but this may be due to transitory effects such as being more likely to still be in graduate school versus employed full‐time.

• Is it an admissions advantage? The capstone may be an admissions incentive for some students, particularly high academic profile students, but it may be a disincentive for others. Our admissions offices vary in the prominence they give the capstone in recruiting and the answer may depend on the institution and its admissions market.

Part 1, Page: 12


• Does it increase alumni loyalty for prospective student referrals? (On the alumni survey, 76% of alumni indicated they identify “strongly” or “very strongly” with their alma mater, but the impact of this of the capstone is impossible to disaggregate.)

• Does it result in higher graduation/retention rates? (This is not a question we can answer from our data, again because of the inability to disaggregate the capstone effect. The most recent 6‐year graduation rates, per IPEDS, are: Red‐77%, Tan‐77%, Yellow‐ 78%, White‐76% (two year average).)

• Does it help in faculty recruitment? This is unknown, and the impact may vary by school.

• Does it enhance academic reputation? This was not a question we gathered data on directly, but student reports of successfully using their capstone product in job or graduate school admission applications would suggest the capstone would have a long‐term positive impact on the institution’s academic reputation.

• Does it require a lower student/faculty ratio? While capstones are faculty intensive, our student faculty ratios are not below average for schools of our type. Per IPEDS, they are: Red‐12 to 1, Tan‐12 to 1, Yellow‐12 to 1, White‐13 to 1.

What is the “sweet spot” for the cost/benefit analysis of capstones at the institutional level? The question is significant at the institutional level because the financial costs for supporting capstones, in terms of faculty and support services expenditures, are substantial and higher per credit hour than regular courses. Moreover, the cost/benefit question is complicated by trade‐offs with other institutional options. What our study shows, however, is that there are significant and distinct benefits to students that are derived from capstone experiences and that substantial student developmental gains can be achieved in a variety of ways. This suggests there is the potential for cost‐conscious institutions to achieve a significant portion of the educational benefits for students with even small capstone programs that incorporate the right features, as discussed below.

WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR GOOD PRACTICE?

In this section, the above data considerations, along with some of the collective wisdom of the faculty and administrators participating in the conferences and discussions is used to draw some general implications for the practice of capstones. Many considerations are based on a consideration of comments from students and mentors. Before listing recommendations, we look below at several preliminary questions. Items are not necessarily in order of perceived importance.

WHAT ASPECTS OF THE CAPSTONE EXPERIENCE LEAD TO THE EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS FOR STUDENTS AND ARE

UNIQUE TO THE CAPSTONE OR ARE MORE PROMINENT IN IT THAN IN A REGULAR COURSE? WHICH ARE THE KEY

FEATURES THAT A CAPSTONE PROGRAM MIGHT INCORPORATE?

• an individualized, independent, research, inquiry or creative project; practicing (not studying) the discipline; becoming “expert” on a topic

Part 1, Page: 13


• 1:1 mentoring (modeling behavior, individualizing instruction/feedback, providing recommendations/championing)

• a large project scale in scope and/or duration (management and accomplishment benefits)

• a high level of challenge; high institutional expectations for effort, time‐on‐task, and performance

• projects reflecting individual student interests or abilities • self‐direction/independence/freedom of action; taking personal responsibility or

ownership of the project • projects that elicit originality, problem solving, persistence • a significant paper, thesis or performance that integrates core liberal arts skills of

writing and critical thinking • presentation of the project to others in a significant way (e.g. oral defense, oral

presentation, poster session, publication) • supportive peer interactions with other students

The above describes what we think are the “gold standard” capstone characteristics that our data suggests led to the best results for students. They are emphasized to varying degrees within our current programs and are not absolutes. In particular, 1:1 mentoring is indicated as a goal but, since it is costly, options that leverage 1:1 faculty mentoring using support services or group meetings are often used. For instance, among techniques used by the four institutions are capstone‐specific preparatory courses to cover prerequisite skills and, often, to prepare the capstone proposal. Less than half of capstones use 1:1 mentoring exclusively (CapType34), and the majority include a combination of 1:1 mentoring and group meetings. Some student comments about capstone courses or seminars taken simultaneously with working on the project suggest that they are most helpful to students if substantial class time deals with shared attention to individual student projects rather than a general topic.

WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TYPES OF CAPSTONE PROJECTS THAT CAN LEAD TO THE MOST BENEFIT

FOR THE STUDENT?

• large scale, but feasible given the student’s background and the time and resources available; generate data the student can present, not simply be cookbook; have built‐in difficulties that can be faced by the student after building some confidence; be multifaceted (c.f. Lopatto, p 17)

• requires project and time management (planning, organization, sustained effort) • of personal interest to the student, something they help select and can own • generates knowledge (new overall or for student) • includes a public presentation • requires significant writing in the style of discipline • is challenging • requires core liberal arts skills – close reading, writing, critical thinking, quantitative

reasoning

Part 1, Page: 14


• uses disciplinary methods, requires consideration of theoretical aspects of the discipline, requires critical thinking in the style of the discipline

• has opportunity for peer interaction around common problems or to give peer reactions/feedback

• requires placing the project in a broad context, e.g. a literature search, consideration of the points of view of others, taking multiple perspectives into account, integrating ideas from other disciplines

• includes a reflective component on the capstone’s contribution to the student and to the discipline or society

Again, these are not absolutes applicable to all capstones, and are not currently emphasized equally in all our programs. The suggestions to include a greater emphasis on integration, multiple perspectives and reflection came from a sense that these were often lacking in our current programs.

WHAT MAKES FOR GOOD PREPARATION FOR A CAPSTONE?

• core liberal arts skills ‐ writing/presenting, critical thinking, creative thinking, general quantitative reasoning

• statistics, advanced quantitative skills, as needed for the discipline • lab skills/technical skill development • disciplinary courses in general • theoretical grounding in the discipline, not just facts • embedded research/inquiry experiences • preparation from coursework in the major, junior seminar or methods courses,

research or writing intensive courses • literature review experience • prior project management experiences that develop planning and organization skills • building for independence in thought and action

WHAT ARE GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF GOOD MENTORING/DUTIES OF MENTORS?

• Encouragement • rapport with the student; cultivating a relationship with student that is collegial;

demonstrating an interest in the student’s topic and the student’s success • availability • help defining the project’s scope • providing a vision for what the project should do for the student and encouraging

students to take advantage of the opportunity • timely and constructive feedback • requiring independence while providing scaffolding for deadlines, objectives, and

expertise; providing the right amount of independence while not letting the student flounder

Part 1, Page: 15


• modeling scholarly behavior, disciplinary practice • be aware of institutional policies and support resources so as to deal appropriately

with unmotivated, underperforming or underprepared students, or students who fall behind due to illness or family problems or experience inordinate stress

• assisting with getting resources: finances, materials, IRB approvals, contacts • if possible, encouraging or structuring peer interactions for mutual support or

collaboration

WHAT ARE THE GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF A GOOD INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE?

• 1:1 mentoring (but not necessarily exclusively) • equitable credit hours across majors and clear expectations for students • equitable and adequate workload credit for faculty • mentoring role valued by the institution and a component of retention, tenure and

promotion decisions • making the rationale for the program explicit for both students and faculty • financial support for individual students through some regularized process (e.g. grant

applications) • clear policies – for mentor and students, and especially for double majors • considering the special challenges of double majors • defining what is expected of mentors; mentor training; mentor handbook • an academic curriculum that prepares students for the capstone. Comments from

mentors noted the importance of writing skills and a particular need to ground majors more firmly in the theory of the discipline.

• in most majors, a course or designed as specific preparation for the capstone, covering such areas as required research methods, project management issues, human subject/IRB ethical considerations, literature searches, etc. and that includes helping the student select their project topic and prepare a proposal.

• structures that promote student input/choice in the selection of the topic and mentor • adequate support from support services ‐ library, reading/writing centers, ITS , … • public recognition and celebration of successful projects • secondary review of the capstone product, such as through a second reader or oral

presentation attended by faculty in the capstone department • a central faculty committee or administrator to oversee and assess program

effectiveness, recommend policies, organize training, etc.

WHAT POLICY or structural concerns HAVE WE UNCOVERED ABOUT OUR CAPSTONE PROGRAMS?

• a perceived lack of uniformity in workload release for mentors • a perception by some faculty that the work involved is greater than the released time

or credited load • a perception among some students of a lack of uniformity in the workload expected

of students across departments or project options (thesis, performance, comprehensive exam)

Part 1, Page: 16


• policies on capstones for double majors lack clarity and uniformity • co‐advising capstones for interdisciplinary capstones often leads to problems • some students and faculty don't have a good sense of the purpose of the capstone • mentor training is informal or inadequate; no handbook • using visiting and first‐year tenure track faculty as mentors, particularly when training

and oversight are weak • student stress is widely reported due to the high expectations and time requirements.

While reasonable stress from the challenge of the capstone is part of the growth equation, an inflated sense of the challenge can occasionally be debilitating.

• capstones may make study abroad more difficult, or make it more difficult to pursue other senior level activities, such as applying for graduate school or jobs

• how mentoring is evaluated for retention, tenure, promotion or merit is not clearly defined

• outcomes data on capstones is not gathered on an ongoing basis for assessment • many departments report the need for more resources (financial, time, space,

equipment, supplies) to support their capstones • many students are challenged by the writing component of capstones, but are

reluctant to use writing centers, which are perceived to be designed for first‐year students

• departmental latitude in structuring capstones appropriate to the discipline is needed, but uniformity across campus is also needed. The tension between these two concerns can be difficult to resolve

• project management does not appear to be on the preparation agenda for many pre‐capstone courses

IMPLICATIONS FOR CAPSTONE PROGRAMS

General recommendations on policies: • capstones should be universal: despite being more difficult for mentors, unmotivated

students should be required to do a capstone • capstones should be universal: low GPA students should be required to do a capstone • capstones should be universal: capstones should be required for all academic

disciplines (e.g., not just sciences) • capstone grading: capstone grading should involve more than the principle mentor

(e.g., second reader or departmental input) • double majors: the primary benefits of a capstone can be achieved by a single

capstone. Policies for double majors should aim to minimize the number of students required to do multiple capstones.

• institutions should have a document explicitly giving the rationale and expected benefits for capstones

• institutions should have a mentor training program • assessment data on capstones should be routinely gathered and reviewed at the

departmental and institutional levels

Part 1, Page: 17


• for equitability, policies on faculty workload credit for mentoring should be established on a campus‐wide basis

• even a limited capstone program can result in benefits; design policies and structures with a view toward the desired benefits

• allow departments to design their own capstone structures appropriate to their disciplines, but within a centralized framework based on uniform objectives, equitable allocation of resources, coordination of integrated capstones, capstones for double majors, and equitable expectations for student and faculty performance and workload

• structures should provide for student input in the selection of both the project topic and mentor

• oral presentation of results is a good capstone feature • campus‐wide celebrations of successful capstones are a good policy • in evaluating individual capstones, some input from beyond the mentor, such as

second reader or oral presentations to the department, can be helpful for grading uniformity and capstone program assessment

Part 1, Page: 18

Capstone as High Impact Practice Page 1

The Capstone as a High Impact Practice

High impact practices are those educational practices believed to be especially effective in achieving important educational benefits [Kuh 2008]. Earlier reports have provided some evidence that a capstone course/project is a “high impact” practice [Brownell and Swaner 2010], [NSSE 2007], [NSSE 2009]. The data collected confirms earlier findings about the educational benefits of capstones and identifies the properties of a capstone program that lead to its being a “high impact” practice.

Capstone Educational Objectives

None of the campuses has explicitly stated educational objectives for its capstone program. However, the descriptions found in institutional documents provide a cohesive statement of the capstone’s purpose, and, from that, its expected outcomes. Broadly, the purpose of the capstone is to give the student a meaningful opportunity to integrate knowledge and experience gained from coursework within a liberal arts curriculum generally and, most importantly, within the student’s major. The capstone ‘product’ is a body of scholarly and/or creative work that is created independently by the student using the theories, methods, and tools of a discipline. The capstone should move students from studying in a discipline to practicing in a discipline, including the ability to clearly and effectively communicate their findings. An important outcome of this experience is the development of engaged and independent learners with a strong sense of intellectual accomplishment and the capacity for individual inquiry.

The data from our study suggest that most of these outcomes are met. More generally, the data suggest that capstones involving a challenging topic and a high degree of independence on the part of the student are especially effective in developing the skills and habits of mind necessary for lifelong learning.

In a more general context, the National Leadership Council for Liberal Education & America’s Promise (an initiative of the Association of American Colleges and Universities) has identified five essential learning outcomes of a contemporary liberal education [AAC&U 2007]:

• Knowledge of Human Cultures and Physical and Natural World • Intellectual and Practical Skills: Inquiry and analysis; critical and creative thinking;

written and oral communication; quantitative literacy; information literacy; teamwork and problem solving

• Personal and Social Responsibility: civic knowledge and competence; ethical reasoning and action; foundations and skills for lifelong learning

• Integrative and Applied Learning: synthesis and advanced accomplishment across general and specialized studies

In addition to the more specific objectives, our study suggests that capstone experiences are, to varying degrees, also “high impact” for these national liberal education objectives.

Part 1, Page: 19


Educational Objectives Highly Impacted by the Capstone Experience

Students generally report the capstone experience was positive for them overall, and both students and mentors report that students develop a variety of skills during the capstone:

• Project management skills. Perhaps surprisingly, this is the area that students and alumni mention most frequently as a benefit of their capstone. The scale and challenge of the capstone requires a level of planning, organization, time‐management, and sustained effort that is beyond anything most students will have previously attempted, so these are areas with significant potential growth.

• Research/Inquiry skills. Students report development of research skills, including data gathering and analysis, technical skills (laboratory, computer, etc.), information literacy, and problem solving.

• Writing and oral communication skills. Most capstones include the writing of a major thesis and public communication of findings through a presentation, poster, and/or oral defense.

• Critical thinking skills. These include critical reading, analysis, and synthesis. • Lifelong learning foundations and skills. These include project management skills, self‐

confidence, self‐authorship, interest in and enjoyment of research, intellectual effort, and career and graduate school preparation.

• Disciplinary knowledge and skills relevant to the project area.

Educational Objectives Less Impacted

Educational objectives that did not appear to be present to a large degree in our capstone formulations, as currently practiced:

• Integrative learning across disciplines. The capstone appears to be an in‐depth experience in the discipline of the major focused on answering a fairly narrow question. The project may integrate liberal arts skills, but generally not knowledge across disciplines.

• Using multiple perspectives. Unless related to the specific project topic, capstones do not generally contribute to understanding of diversity issues involving gender, race, religion, politics, or different cultures. While students develop a deeper understanding of their own views, they are more likely to report they considered the perspectives of others during regular courses than during their capstone. Again, this may not be surprising given that the focus on answering a single, often narrow, question is not conducive to exploring multiple perspectives along these lines.

• Teamwork/collaboration. The result here is not surprising since teamwork is not an emphasis of most capstone experiences. Most projects are individual, and structures that encourage student support of each other, while at times organized by individual mentors or occur as seminars or periodic meetings, are not the norm. This also suggests that students did not perceive that working with their mentor constituted “collaboration”.

Part 1, Page: 20


• Quantitative reasoning, other than in the sciences. Although quantitative reasoning is generally integrated into natural science research and social science research often involves statistical or graphical skills, the schools do not have any quantitative reasoning requirement associated with the capstone.

• Civic orientation. A few capstones are community based, but promoting civic engagement is not commonly seen as an intentional objective. Capstones did not show an impact on an orientation towards civic issues – volunteering, helping others, being a community leader, or influencing social values.

Properties Promoting Successful Capstones

What aspects of the capstone experience seem to lead to what students and mentors report as benefits? (These are present to various degrees in different types of capstone.)

• 1:1 mentoring. Through encouragement, feedback, providing of expertise, and modeling of scholarly skills and behavior, the mentoring relationship is a key element of a successful capstone.

• Student choice or input in the topic. A topic or project that is of personal interest to the student, either selected by the student or negotiated with student input, that the student takes ownership of.

• Project size and duration. A sustained, long‐term, large scale, significant project requiring organization, planning, time and project management, and with a significant intellectual challenge.

• Inquiry, research, or a creative project. Asking the student to discover new knowledge, whether totally new (research) or new to the student (inquiry), or to conduct a creative project. There is tremendous potential for growth when venturing into the unknown.

• Independence. There is an expectation of considerable independence on the part of the student. Structures that allow students freedom to act and develop their own ideas and approaches; a requirement of “self‐authorship”. A related component is the need for students to deal with the uncertainty of open‐ended problems and the unanticipated obstacles that often pop up.

• High expectations. An institutional ethos that expects a successful capstone project to be major achievement.

• Time‐on‐task. Related to the above, students spend a good deal of time and effort on their project.

• Practice of the discipline. The student is asked to act as a practitioner in the discipline, e.g. to “think like an historian”. Students should be expected to use the critical thinking and writing styles of the discipline and demonstrate an understanding of the theoretical structure of the discipline. Where appropriate, specific laboratory, data analysis, or research method skills should be utilized. Evaluation of the project is based on disciplinary standards and peer review.

• Self‐reflection. Recognition of personal abilities, limitations, values, and interests. Building of self‐confidence and a realization of personal potential.

Part 1, Page: 21


• Public presentation/recognition/celebrations. Presenting the results of the project through an oral defense, public presentation, poster session, celebration of learning event, undergraduate research conference, performance, exhibition, etc.

• Integration of liberal arts skills. Capstones that integrate disciplinary expertise with significant writing, critical thinking and presentation skills.

Good Institutional Practices

• Explicit goals for students. Explicit expectations for mentors. Perhaps in guidebook form reinforced through mentoring, particularly of junior faculty. The results of this project suggest that some of the benefits of capstones, such as learning project management, are not as explicitly understood by students or mentors or are not as much of capstone preparation as they should be.

• Use of a second reader or departmental review. Having two or more readers maintains uniformity of standards, adds to confidence in the fairness and reliability of the evaluation, and introduces an element of peer review of research. Although a designated second reader is suggested, it involves significant additional faculty workload, and student oral presentations attended by departmental faculty might be considered as an alternative. Being a second reader can be a good training tool for new mentors. In cases of student underperformance, the mentor may find the second reader is a helpful backup in enforcing standards. In cases of double majors with an integrated capstone, a reader from each discipline, possibly co‐mentors, may be particularly helpful.

• Equitable treatment across disciplines for faculty workload credit for mentoring, and equitable expectations and evaluation for student achievement.

• Adequate support services. Faculty mentoring time should be counted in the workload to allow sufficient time for mentoring. Schools should consider the special needs for library support services, IT/computer services, laboratory equipment, and student workspace. Reading/writing centers should consider offering services dedicated to supporting seniors writing capstones. Financial support for individual capstone projects should be available and reviewed through a “grant” process.

• Student input in the mentor choice. Because the student:mentor relationship is so important in terms of rapport and providing expertise, policies and procedures should allow as much student choice in the student:mentor matching as can be accommodated, recognizing that there are other factors to consider, including balancing faculty workload, faculty research interests, and departmental scheduling.

• Student ownership of the project. Student ownership of the project underlies much of the developmental benefits. The topic choice and design of the project should have student input through a process of negotiation with the mentor.

• A mentor training program. Topics might include: o the nature and importance of the student:mentor relationship. The mentor as a

guide, model of scholarly behavior and provider of encouragement o explicit discussion of the institutional goals for the capstone experience o a review of institutional policies and guidelines for capstones

Part 1, Page: 22


o institutional expectations for capstone mentors o suggestions or criteria for designing a capstone project that will meet the

intended goals for student development. (e.g. from Lopatto: reasonable scope, be feasible, generate data student can present, not simply be cookbook experiment, have built in difficulties that can be faced by the student after building some confidence, be multifaceted)

o working with the student to scale the project for the time available and the student’s capabilities

o scaffolding for independence: providing students with appropriate freedom and challenge, while providing enough structure to avoid floundering

o monitoring and alternatives to deal with student stress, a prominent negative aspect of the capstone experience as reported by students, particularly if the capstone is configured as a high‐stakes, high expectation requirement

o ways to deal with unmotivated, unresponsive, or disorganized students (the most common mentor complaint)

o structures to deal with mentoring multiple advisees: the options, pros, and cons of structures like classes, seminars and group meetings

• Pre‐capstone preparation. Departments should “reverse engineer” their curriculums to prepare students for the capstone. In addition to writing and presenting, general education or departmental courses might include precursor experiences that include progressively more advanced elements of research and project management. Where appropriate, a pre‐capstone course such as a research methods course is appropriate. A successful practice is a course, seminar, or independent study preliminary to the capstone in which individual projects are designed.

• Double majors. Policies covering capstones for double majors need to be particularly clear. Does the student need to do a capstone in both? If not, is a single integrated capstone required? Policies on responsibilities in cases of co‐advising should be explicit and clear. The sense of this study is that the objectives of capstone experiences are sufficiently met with a single capstone, and requiring two capstones is not necessary or even generally desirable given other educational opportunities, such as study abroad, that might also benefit the student. On the other hand, many departments justifiably want each major to have a research experience in their major. The four institutions in this study have not found an ideal solution for this problem.

• Integrated capstones. There are special difficulties in doing an integrated capstone in multiple disciplines, as from self‐designed majors or integrated double majors, particularly if it requires a theoretical understanding in more than one discipline. Institutions should consider implementing special approval procedures and guidelines that ensure the student is capable of the challenge, and that advisers in both disciplines have approved and are supporting the project.

• Multiple‐perspectives. If it is an educational objective that each capstone is to be a culminating integrative experience of the four‐year educational experience, this needs to be built into the capstone program explicitly. Otherwise, our data suggests that most capstones are designed as in‐depth experiences of a narrow topic within the discipline.

Part 1, Page: 23


• Self‐reflection. A valuable component of the capstone experience can be to ask students to reflect in some formal way on what they learned about their own capabilities, interests, and values. Additionally, students can benefit from reflecting on the value of their project, either in the context of their discipline or for society in general.

• Opportunities for peer interaction. Although a capstone project will generally be an individual project, structures that promote student interactions concerning their projects can augment mentor guidance and spur student motivation by giving valuable peer support, critiques, problem assistance, general feedback, and opportunities to develop presentation skills. This might, for instance, take the form of departmental seminars where students present and get feedback on their capstone projects while they are in progress, or mentors supervising multiple students may simply schedule weekly meetings. Based on student reports, concurrent capstone classes or seminars should include significant discussion of individual student projects to meet this need.

• Oral presentations of results. Some sort of oral presentation of results is helpful in communication skill development and also in allowing the student to experience a role as the “expert” on his or her project. This incorporates an element of peer review of research and is motivating in terms of adding to a sense of personal responsibility for claimed results. In addition to a final presentation, student seminars might present opportunities for presentation of preliminary results and peer feedback.

• Culminating public celebrations. A campus‐wide celebration of successful capstones is a helpful practice in motivating seniors and recognizing student achievements, and can have an instructive or inspirational role for students in their first through third years.

• Departmental design latitude. Within a clear general framework of goals and expectations, academic departments should have latitude to design capstone programs appropriate for their discipline. Our experience is that a variety of capstone types can be successful.

• A limited central capstone authority. While departments should be the locus of implementation of their own capstones, some committee or administrator should have responsibility to monitor the capstone program, recommend policies, provide faculty development opportunities, etc. While departments need to be able to customize the capstone as appropriate to their discipline, centralized review will help in ensuring capstone program objectives are being met and issues of equity in performance expectation and workload are resolved for both faculty and students.

• Assessment. Departments and the institution should use feedback from students and mentors in assessment.

[AAC&U 2007] National Leadership Council for Liberal Education and America’s Promise, 2007, College Learning for the New Global Century: A report from the National Leadership Council for Liberal Education & America’s Promise, Association of American Colleges and Universities, Washington, D.C.

Part 1, Page: 24


[Brownell and Swaner 2010] Brownell, J. E., & Swaner, L. E. (2010) Five High‐Impact Practices: Research on Learning Outcomes, Completion, and Quality. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

[Kuh 2008] Kuh, George, 2008, High‐Impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has Access to Them, and Why They Matter, Association of American Colleges and Universities, Washington, D.C.

[NSSE 2007] National Survey of Student Engagement 2007 Experiences That Matter: Enhancing Student Learning and Success. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.

[NSSE 2009] National Survey of Student Engagement 2009 Assessment for Improvement: Tracking Student Engagement over Time. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.

Part 1, Page: 25

blank page

Part 1, Page: 26

Potential Improvement Projects

Following is a list of ideas for improvement projects generated from the data and our discussions. We recognize that each campus will identify its own needs and these are shared with you simply as suggestions for consideration.

Committee chairs: Please add any items you would recommend from strengths identified in your own programs.

General policy review to explore implications of our research

• Policies relating to double majors. • Faculty workload and fair/equitable load credit • Grading methods – second reader system? • Equitable/appropriate level of expectations for students • A faculty committee or other administrative structure responsible for ongoing policy

development • Ways to foster student project ownership and increase student input in topic and

mentor selection • Policies to promote more integration into the capstone of ideas from outside the

discipline of the major • Adding or refining a reflective component • Adding or refining an oral presentation requirement • Considering ways that the capstones might be combined with other high impact

practices on campus (e.g., civic engagement, service learning, learning communities) • Policies rewarding mentoring in tenure and merit reviews

Develop/formalize assessment of the capstone program

• Create a standardize instrument for campus‐wide use • Assessment and improvement committee

Mentor training

• New faculty mentor orientation program • Mentor handbook • Leave/sabbaticals • Information statement on what students want/need • Information piece on how to handle underachieving or unmotivated students (e.g.,

more deadlines, smaller tasks, more frequent feedback, understanding student motivations, using peer interactions to help motivation….). This could be part of the mentor handbook.

• Characteristics of a good topic/project. This could be part of the mentor handbook. • Helping student tailor a project for the time available. This could be part of the mentor

handbook?

Part 1, Page: 27

• Developing student independence; avoiding micromanaging while verifying progress. This could be part of the mentor handbook?

Student preparation

• Student handbook • Preparatory course adjustments • Reengineering parts of the curriculum • Implementing a junior capstone • Undergraduate research opportunities/programs, including summer research

internships, summer REU participation, etc. • Building speaking/presentation experiences into the curriculum from the first year as

preparation for the oral defense • Building progressively more challenging project management experiences into the

general education curriculum, and include project management as a topic of pre‐capstone methods courses

Resource development

• Funding system for supporting individual capstones through a review process • Facilities improvements – student workspace, lab equipment, computer software, etc. • Student support service enhancements ‐ writing center, library, IT, student grants • Mentor support services – referral services that off‐load lower level mentoring tasks

commonly needed (particularly for weaker students) such as dealing with the mechanical areas of writing or use of basic statistics.

Cost/efficiency projects to increase bang for buck

• Ways to leverage mentor time through support services • Ways for leverage mentor time through combining 1:1 mentoring in conjunction with

seminars that address common issues for all capstone students of the mentor or department. Our results suggests that bringing students together on a regular basis to discuss their projects (the good, the bad, the ugly) has a real (measurable) benefit.

Public recognition of successful capstones

• Campus‐wide celebrations/presentations. Possibly a dedicated day in the academic calendar

• Web publication or archiving of electronic copies of project papers or abstracts • Prizes/awards • Support to present at undergraduate research conferences

Part 1, Page: 28

PART 2: CAPSTONE PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS This section includes a narrative about the capstone program provided by each institution and results of surveys of academic departments concerning their policies, capstone administration, and capstone types. SUMMARY NOTES: The Capstone Programs of Allegheny College, Augustana College, College of Wooster, and Washington College CAPSTONE DESCRIPTION NARRATIVES

• Allegheny College • Augustana College • College of Wooster • Washington College

CAPSTONE POLICIES AND ADMINISTRATION SURVEY RESULTS CAPSTONE DESCRIPTION SURVEY RESULTS

Part 2 , Page: 1

Summary Notes: The Capstone Programs of Allegheny College, Augustana College, College of Wooster, and Washington College This section includes detailed narratives from each institution about the structures of their capstone programs, and the results of surveys of departments as to capstone types, policies and administration. The brief summary notes below, in conjunction with Table 1 below, highlight features of the four programs, as summarized from this information:

• A universal capstone requirement. All students are required to complete a capstone. • A long history of capstone programs. For Allegheny, capstones date back to 1821.

Washington’s and Wooster’s programs date to the 1940s. Augustana is the exception, having just implemented a capstone program beginning in 2008.

• A high level of departmental control of the capstone. No institutional has a designated central faculty or administrative committee for program oversight. Since capstones center around practice of scholarship in the discipline, this approach recognizes the need to adapt policies to disciplinary approaches and standards, but may lead to some incoherence in approaches to such common concerns as capstone rationale and expectations, mentor training, faculty workload credit, and program assessment.

• Generally similar views of the capstone’s objectives. These focus on a culminating, sustained, independent act of research or inquiry, centered in the student’s major(s). There is a general emphasis on critical thinking and communication skills. Although a major thesis or paper is a common requirement in of many departments, one school has a universal “substantial written work” requirement and two schools require an oral defense. Unique to Augustana is an explicit “reflection” requirement on the meaning of the capstone for the society.

• Capstone types that adapt to disciplinary approaches to research or knowledge production. For example, capstones in the sciences commonly include laboratory or field work research, capstones in the arts may include creative expression, pre‐professional capstones may include internships, or, in the case of education, student teaching.

• A standardized formula for faculty teaching credit. The exception here is Augustana, which varies the formula by department. For the other three institutions, the formulas are standardized across campus and close to a rule that gives one course release for supervising 11‐12 capstone courses (where Wooster’s capstones are counted as two courses).

• No formal institution‐wide mentor handbook or training program. Instead training is more informal, and new faculty may be initiated through attending student oral defenses or being a second reader.

• No institution‐wide capstone manual for students. This may be a consequence of departmental variation in the capstones, although the general objectives would seem to be a common theme that might warrant an institutional explication. Wooster reports that all or nearly all departments have a departmental capstone manual of policies and procedures.

• Capstone specific preparatory experiences. All institutions recognize the need for curricular elements that prepare students for the capstone. Critical thinking skills and communication skills in writing and oral presentation are built in general education and departmental courses. Most departments have one or more courses specifically designed as preparation for the capstone, and that covers such things as research methods, writing skills in the discipline, and may include development of the capstone proposal.

Part 2 , Page: 2

• Financial support for individual capstones. Although the amounts vary widely, all institutions have some provisions for allocating funds for individual students to support capstone needs such as for supplies, materials, equipment, travel, etc.

• Double major policies. Policies on capstones for double majors vary widely. Double majors at Allegheny generally are expected to a single integrative capstone, while at Washington and Wooster, double majors do a single combined capstone if a suitable project can be found. This is typical for Wooster and occurs about 50% of the time for Washington. Augustana allows departments to negotiate if a double major must complete capstones in both departments or if one department will waive their requirement; integrated capstones are possible but not the general rule.

• Rubrics are commonly used by departments in evaluating their capstones. • Assignment of mentors generally accommodates both student preferences and the need to

balance faculty workload. • Determination of the capstone topic is typically either done by the student or negotiated

between the student and mentor.

Part 2 , Page: 3

Part 2 Table 1: Capstone Program Features of the Four Colleges

Institution: Allegheny Augustana Washington WoosterCapstone Title (Informal)

Senior Comprehensive Project (SCP) Senior Inquiry (SI) Senior Capstone Experience (SCE) Independent Study (IS)

Summary Description

A sustained independent act of inquiry or creativity consistent, in methodology and focus, with the nature of such work in that student’s academic major. All include a substantial written component and all conclude with a student’s oral defense or oral presentation. Nature of projects largely determined by departments.

Culminating project of synthesis, analysis, and reflection

Project of active learning within the major Junior year IS plus a two‐course senior year IS. Seniors work individually with an advisor on a topic agreed on between the student and advisor, culminating in a thesis or creative project, and defended in an oral presentation. All students must submit their project by the same date. Departments have considerable latitude in the implementation (types of IS, selection of topic and mentor, etc.).

Origin and History Present SCP format since 1942; some kind of capstone since 1821

SI designed in 2005‐6, phased in by departments in 2008‐11

A form of senior capstone has been a requirement since 1959. Previously a thesis or comprehensive exam , and called “senior obligation”, it has been the SCE since 2006‐07.

Established as a universal requirement in 1944 under a philosophy that the most effective learning occurs through the independent effort of the student; that personal development is more than acquiring subject matter knowledge; and, that grappling with the basic problems of scholarship gives the student the confidence and abilities necessary for lifelong learning.

Purpose/ Objective Put into independent practice the analytic, creative, and expressive habits cultivated in their major field(s); integrate discipline‐specific knowledge with communication and research skills

Substantial in meaning, communicative of discoveries, reflective; with a meaningful mentor relationship

Integrate knowledge and skills to produce sense of mastery and intellectual accomplishment

The culmination of a four‐year academic journey and a framework for thinking and inquiry that brings cohesion to the curriculum. Development of engaged and independent learners and the capacity for individual inquiry. Creation of a body of scholarly and/or creative work that is generated independently by the student using the tools and theories of a discipline and that somehow advance or otherwise contribute to a field of study. Moving students from studying in a discipline to practicing in a discipline.

Part 2 , Page: 4

Institution: Allegheny Augustana Washington Wooster

Project Types Emulates practice of discipline. Laboratory experimentation guided by hypothesis; social science projects do quantitative or theory‐based research; humanities projects involve interpretive arguments about primary documents, informed by second‐source research, or they are creative works.

No institutional requirement; determined by needs of department curriculum.

Varies by department. Types include: traditional thesis (all Departments offer this as an option),Visual thesis (Art), curating thesis (Art), comprehensive exams (Art, Biology, Economics, English, Modern Languages, drama Production thesis (directing, performance or design)playwriting thesis, solo recital (Music),extended composition (Music), lecture recital (Music),programming project (Computer Science), strategic analysis of a firm (Business Management), experiential (Business Management), experimental capstone (Biology, Chemistry, Psychology).

Varies. Examples: Psychology ‐ data gathering project with clear manipulation of at least one variable; Physics ‐ extending knowledge by experiment, simulation, or theory; English ‐ literary analysis or creative works (short stories, poems, novella, film studies, news writing...); Theatre ‐ thesis or based on acting, directing, stage management, play writing, ...

General Requirements /Expectations

Projects must include a substantial written work and an oral defense. Other expectations vary by department. Most departments have an evaluation rubric.

Students should demonstrate the ability to think critically and to engage in a project of active learning in their major field of studies. They are expected to demonstrated student initiative, significant preparatory work, active inquiry, integration of acquired knowledge and skills, and culmination of previous academic work

Content criteria ‐ the significance of the subject for personal intellectual development, the progress of professional understanding, and the needs of society. Manageability of the topic is also an essential consideration. Method ‐ development of a plan with an appropriate logic, design, or conception. Form ‐ communication of what has been discovered or developed through exposition or creative expression. An oral defense.

Grading Policies Letter grade; passing required for graduation. Grades determined by the project director and second reader after the oral defense. Some departments consider these grades provisional pending a departmental review to "norm" the grades. Most departments have rubrics.

Varies by department Set by department. Some honors, pass, fail or pass and fail; others regular grades; passing required for graduation. Project due on last day of classes, senior year.

No Credit, Satisfactory, Good, or Honors. Grades based on the work accomplished during each of the semesters, the quality of the completed thesis, and the oral defense of the thesis. Grade jointly assigned by first and second reader. Some departments hold a meeting to discuss assignment of I.S. grades. Many departments have evaluation rubrics.

Topic Selection Methods

Varies by department. Examples: students approach and negotiate with faculty whose expertise matches the focus the student would like to take; students choose from categories of topics and linked mentors presented at open houses, on web sites; topics determined as extensions of a junior or senior seminar. Almost all departments require a project proposal.

Varies from individually negotiated to student enrollment in a topical seminar from with the topic is derivative and the mentor is the seminar instructor.

Most topics are negotiated between the student and mentor, and is usually allied with the mentor's interests and expertise.

Topic selection is student‐driven and negotiated with the advisor, but methods vary by department. All departments have a handbook covering the process and many have meetings where faculty share their interests and suggest ideas for IS topics.

Part 2 , Page: 5


Mentor Selection Methods

Varies by department and conjoined with topic selected (see above). Most restrictive are projects extending a seminar, where the mentor is the seminar instructor. Second readers are mostly assigned by department chairs based on expertise and workload distribution.

Varies by department. In order or most frequent: chosen by students, negotiated, or assigned by departments.

Varies by department. Considerations include student and advisor preferences, the student’s topic, and the need to distribute advising load. In some departments students submit a list of ordered preferences and an attempt is made to match. Some use a first‐come first‐served approach.

Student Credit Hours (semester Hours)

4‐8 credit hours. Most common is 6 credits spanning two terms with a 2‐credit preliminary course in which students do research and develop their project proposal followed by the four‐credit project itself.

With exceptions, 3 to 9 credit hours, with 3 most usual.

4 credit hours 4 credit Junior IS over one semester plus 8 credit Senior IS over two semesters

Faculty Teaching Credits

Point system. 4 points per student: 3 for the project director, 1 for the second reader. With double‐major projects, the capstone advisors from each major receive two points each (and that usually constitutes the faculty board for the project). A course release is given for 44 points, so 11 senior projects are roughly equivalent to a course. Points can be banked, but only one release can be used in any term.

Varies by department according to formulas negotiated with the dean.

One course release for every 12 capstones supervised. Can be banked. Faculty can opt for payment on the same basis as a course overload, the most common option due to a shortage of qualified adjuncts to cover overloads.

Faculty teach 5.5 teaching credits/year. Faculty receive one course release for advising five IS students for the two terms. Credits can be "banked".

Expectations for Mentors

No formal expectations or requirements have been enunciated, assuming same expectations as for classroom teaching. No mentor handbook. Training is informal and collegial. New faculty don't mentor the first year, often begin by attending oral presentations.

No explicit expectations. Help identify topic; meet regularly with the student (3/4 ‐1 hour/week, but varies greatly by dept.); assist with thesis editing; provide a written evaluation of the work submitted

Part 2 , Page: 6


Student Preparation

Junior seminar; approved proposal General education courses, earlier department course(s), research methods courses.

Most departments offer a course specifically designed to prepare students for the capstone. Depending upon the department, these preparatory courses include Junior Seminars, Senior Seminars, and various research methods courses. Virtually all of these preparatory courses involved learning methods useful for the SCE, determining the SCE topic, developing a capstone proposal, starting work on the SCE, and refining discipline specific communication skills. About half included assigning students to SCE mentors, and some prepared students for a comprehensive exam.

The general education requirements and courses taken in the student’s major are intended to prepare the student for Senior Independent Study by developing disciplinary expertise, critical and creative thinking skills, and communication skills. The development of writing skills begins with First Year Seminar and continues in a writing intensive course that must be completed prior to beginning Junior Independent Study. Most departments require a one semester Junior IS course, often a research methods course.

Institutional Administration

No central administrative or faculty group. Policies and administration under departmental control, except for faculty workload credit system.

No central administrative or faculty group. Policies and administration under departmental control.

No central committee. Administered almost entirely by departments.

No central committee beyond Educational Policies Committee. Departmental latitude within general framework. No formal assessment has been done recently , other than through this Teagle Grant

Double Majors Project nature negotiated among student and advisor from each department, and are expected to be integrative. Credit hours count once on transcript but towards each department's requirements separately. Deadlines are set by the department the student identifies as the primary major.

Policies vary by department. Integrative capstones are not the general rule. Some departments require a capstone in their department and the student will do two capstones. Others may waive the requirement in deference to another department, based on the student's preference.

Double majors complete a single, combined capstone about 50% of the time. Whether the capstone is combined or separate, each faculty mentor receives full credit (1/12) for that student, but the student receives only one course credit.

A student is required to complete all the I.S. requirements in each of his/her majors. Typically a double major will find a topic that satisifes the requirements of both departments and produce a single thesis. In these cases, each department will provide an advisor. The student registers for the first semester of Senior I.S. in one of th departments, and for the second semester in the other department.

Special Resources Funds distributed from the Provost's office are designated to support senior projects. The Center for Experiential Learning can help fund students’ travel to conferences in which they present research undertaken in their senior projects. A "Senior Research Fund" underwrites awards up to $500.

An "Augie Choice" fund incorporated in tuition charges serves as a $2000 personal account that students may draw on for senior projects, among other approved opportunities such as study abroad.

While no funding sources are specifically devoted to SCE, some departments provide funding support for students., and some receive support from fellowships.

The "Copeland Fund" provides about $90,000 annually to support individual projects, granted by competitive proposal review. Library study carrels. Support centers for writing, math, advising. Collaborative Research Environment center ‐ collaborative spaces, presentation practice rooms, advanced technology, support staff for research, writing and new media.

Part 2 , Page: 7


Celebrations/ Recognition of Completed Projects

Electronic archiving of projects in "D‐Space". Invited presentations at a project celebration. Departmental celebrations. Currently working on a reserved calendar day at the end of the school year for presentations.

An all day campus‐wide "Celebration of Learning", is held on a Saturday in spring, and gives students an opportunity to present their projects as oral presentations or via posters.

No college‐wide celebration, but a number of departments host events. All students submit their capstones to the college library's online database.

All projects due on the first Monday after spring break. A celebratory parade of seniors who have submitted their project is held that day, and "I did it" buttons are worn. Classes are canceled in late spring for a "Senior Research Symposium" with presentations, posters and exhibits. Wooster Magazine devotes an issue to projects. College web page features short videos of students explaining projects.

Part 2 , Page: 8

Allegheny College Capstone Structure Description The capstone experience at Allegheny College is called the Senior Comprehensive Project (the “senior project,” in the official idiom; the “comp” in the vernacular). For every graduating senior at Allegheny this experience is a sustained independent act of inquiry or creativity consistent, in methodology and focus, with the nature of such work in that student’s academic major. Students doing senior projects in biology and chemistry do what biologists and chemists do, laboratory experimentation guided by hypotheses and research questions; students undertaking political science projects do the quantitative‐ or theory‐based research and discursive work that characterize that discipline; English majors make critical arguments about literary texts or, as creative writers, fabricate their own literature. All senior projects include a substantial written component (even in the case of visual art and music majors), and all conclude with a student’s oral defense or oral presentation of findings before a two‐ or three‐person faculty board. Seniors choose their project topics with varying degrees of latitude (depending on the department or program), and each senior project is guided by that student’s senior project faculty advisor, with another faculty member, designated “second reader,” sometimes contributing to this guidance. Origin and History Allegheny has had some kind of required capstone experience for all students since its first graduating class in 1821. Since 1942, successfully completing a senior project as we know it now, including the oral defense, has been a graduation requirement. (In the 1970s, oral examinations shifted from a general defense of disciplinary expertise to a more focused presentation of the Senior Project findings.) Much like the rest of the curriculum, the nature and evolution of senior projects within each discipline has largely been determined by each department, reflecting the evolving practices that characterize academic work in that discipline. From at least its modern inception onward, the senior project has figured centrally in the educational culture at Allegheny. Although it is no longer characterized by the breadth or recapitulative nature suggested by the “comprehensive” part of its name, the Comprehensive Senior Project stands as the culminating experience of undergraduate education at the college. Admissions literature touts it as the pinnacle of independent intellectual opportunity and challenge at Allegheny; the College Catalogue notes that it is “often . . . a pivotal moment where a student realizes his or her own abilities and potential;” many departments and programs construct their curricula in part to prepare their majors for the senior project; and many seniors, working in disciplines where their senior project research can lead to national conference presentations and even co‐authorship of articles with their faculty mentors, make use of the senior project as an asset in graduate school applications and post‐graduate employment. Finally, for faculty, the senior project has recently emerged as a site in which they can undertake both interdisciplinary and assessment‐based considerations. Over the last five years an average of 15% of Allegheny’s seniors have been double‐majors; because most of them do one senior project that combines the disciplines of their two majors, faculty members advising and evaluating such projects have had to define, at least situationally, what successful multi‐ or interdisciplinary work looks like in that context. (As of yet, such conversations have not been systematic or comprehensive.) Similarly, because it is the most thoroughgoing occasion in which students demonstrate both their disciplinary learning and their possession of broader liberal arts learning outcomes such as effective communication and critical thinking, the senior project is now being considered as the window through which the college can best assess, in a direct way, the success of its educational program.

Part 2 , Page: 9

Educational Objectives It is fair to say that the Senior Project was initiated and developed at Allegheny before the educational objectives or learning outcomes hoped for from this experience were formulated in an explicit, elaborated, and consensus‐based way. Still, it is an institutional fact that the Senior Project is the one sustained occasion when Allegheny students can put into independent practice the analytic, creative, and expressive habits cultivated in their major field(s) of study and in the college’s liberal arts environment more generally. In it students are called on to integrate discipline‐specific knowledge with the communication and research skills they have practiced, since their first semester, in the College’s general education sequence of writing‐ and speaking‐intensive seminars. The senior project grading rubrics that departments and programs have been developing in recent years reflect these educational goals. Administration, Policies, and Procedures The specific nature and administration of senior projects—their length, methodology, and standards of evaluation, for example, and how students arrive at their topic and are assigned their senior project advisors—are defined by each department and program. There is no central administrative or faculty group regulating these matters. The one exception to this rule is in the determination and distribution of “senior project points” for faculty (see below). The project point system was initiated and defined by the Provost, in consultation with Faculty Council, and the Registrar keeps track of each faculty member’s points total, in consultation with department and program chairs. Students receive anywhere from 4 to 8 credits for their senior projects. (At Allegheny, a course typically is worth 4 credits.) The most common credit total is 6, spanning two semesters (a two‐credit preliminary course experience, in which students do research and develop their project proposal, and the four‐credit project itself); 10 of Allegheny’s 22 majors require a two‐semester, 6‐credit sequence. Seven majors are the one‐semester, four‐credit variety; three majors offer the option of a one‐ or two‐semester senior project (with total senior project course credits varying from four to eight); one department, Environmental Science, requires a two‐semester, eight‐credit senior project experience, and one department, Communication Arts, has a two‐semester, five‐credit project. There is nearly the same level of variation in how the specific topics for senior projects are chosen. Some departments take a relatively laissez faire approach, inviting students to approach faculty whose expertise matches (exactly or roughly) the focus the student would like to take in his or her project, and the two have a conversation in which, typically, the topic is modified for practical reasons but still reflects the student’s original interest. Other departments present categories of topics to their rising seniors (through their website, in a department‐wide open house, or in some other way), and students choose a topic within those categories, each asking to work with the faculty member identified with their chosen category. Other departments guide the choice of topics much more firmly, usually through a junior or senior seminar, in which the research focus of that course is extended into the senior project itself. This model suits some natural science departments particularly well since students’ senior project work can merge with the ongoing research of the faculty member teaching the pre‐senior project seminar in question. Almost all departments also require a senior project proposal—usually that is the culminating product of the two‐credit preliminary senior project course—and further practical modifications of a student’s topic occur through a faculty vetting of the proposal. This vetting occurs among the student, the designated senior project advisor, and the “second reader,” that is, the other faculty member on that senior project board. In the case of double majors, the discussion over the

Part 2 , Page: 10

proposal is especially important, since the challenge of crafting a topic that satisfies two departments at once (in the case of joint projects) can be pronounced. In that case, the two faculty advisors are both senior project directors, one from each department involved. As suggested above, the senior project topic‐selection process is conjoined, in many cases, with the process by which mentors are assigned to seniors. Obviously, in the case of departments where the junior seminar leads quite explicitly to the senior project, the options for students in choosing senior project mentors are limited—limited, by and large, to those faculty teaching those seminars. In terms of the composition of the senior project board, nearly all departments now have two‐reader boards: the senior project director (also called “first reader”) and the second reader. In most departments, second readers are assigned by the department chair, working by the principles of relevant expertise and work‐load equity. (In joint‐projects for double‐majors, the two faculty readers are the comp advisors from the two departments in question.) Allegheny has no formal senior project mentor training program or handbook for faculty, as of yet. We have depended on collegial mentoring (and perhaps institutional osmosis) to bring new colleagues up to speed in this area. In recognition of the teaching and work‐load challenges specific to successful senior project advising, it is common practice not to allow first‐year tenure track faculty to advise senior projects. Furthermore, some departments help new colleagues learn these ropes by having them sit in on senior project oral defenses. It is also typically the case that non‐tenure‐track faculty do not advise senior projects; nor do adjunct faculty. There are no formal expectations or requirements for senior project advising articulated in any college documents. The presiding assumption is that faculty will be guided in this mentoring by many of the same principles that define successful classroom teaching and academic advising at Allegheny: a demonstrated competence in their field of specialization (citing relevant research in the field, invoking current issues and problems for scholars in this area, placing this subject area within a liberal arts context, being willing to explore new areas of inquiry related to this field); the maintenance of evaluative standards (demonstrating personal and professional integrity, adhering to high standards for student performance, grading fairly); and a willingness to work with students in an advising capacity (being available for student consultation, being sympathetic to student needs). In practice, the mentoring process also adheres to certain conventions. In the Humanities and Social Sciences, students usually meet with the senior project advisors at regular intervals (once every week or two), often to discuss chapter drafts. In some large departments in those divisions, these meetings happen in “comp groups.” The mentoring routine is usually different in the Natural Sciences, organized as that work is by collaborative laboratory work. On the occasions when students “fall behind” in some way—do not turn in chapter drafts by the appointed date, miss lab sessions, fall behind in data collection, etc.—faculty are free to “mentor” as they choose (from contacting and persistently encouraging such students, to granting them complete independence and leaving them alone). Regarding policies for senior projects that combine two majors: as with the formulation of joint senior project topics mentioned above, how such projects are undertaken is always negotiated by the three parties involved (the student and the two faculty readers from the two departments). There are some rules, though, that govern the parameters of such projects. In terms of credits, a student’s joint project will have its credits “double‐counted” in each department, even though this double‐counting doesn’t happen, quantitatively, on the student’s transcript. (For example, if a student does a joint German and Music senior project, each department will understand that student to have added 4 credits to his major in their department, but he will not get 8 credits for the project on his transcript.) When the two

Part 2 , Page: 11

departments have asymmetrical senior project credit arrangements (a two‐course, six‐credit sequence in one department and a one‐course, four‐credit project in the other, for example), the faculty members and student need to negotiate a plan that satisfies both departments. Finally, on the specific question of which department’s deadlines (for the proposal and the final draft of the project itself) obtain, the major that the student lists first in the major declaration form dictates on this subject. There are two standard ways that senior project grades are determined. In most departments, the faculty board (the project director and the second reader—and, on rare occasions, a third reader) confers directly after the student’s senior project oral defense and arrives at a grade. A few departments think of such grades as provisional. At the end of each semester they meet to discuss all the senior projects in the department that term, along with the provisional grades they received, with the intention of having these discussions “norm” the grades across the department. Most departments (no matter which of the above two paths they take to grading senior projects) have created senior project rubrics which also help to systematize such grading. Most departments also have senior project guidelines which they distribute to their majors; these guidelines spell out the department’s expectations for senior projects, along with enumerating protocols (such as manuscript formatting), deadlines, and “late‐comp” policies. Senior projects that are completed after the deadline will receive a grade penalty that is usually stipulated in a department’s guidelines. General Requirements and Expectations Not surprisingly, departments understand most of the course work required of the major as prerequisites for the senior project. (The three‐course writing‐ and speaking‐intensive seminar sequence, required of all first and second year students, can be said to begin all Allegheny students’ preparation for the senior project.) With one exception, every major requires a junior seminar. (In Religious Studies this course is required but is designated a “Group Tutorial,” in deference to the heterogeneity of methodologies and content areas in this field; in three interdisciplinary majors—Biochemistry, International Studies, and Neuroscience—a junior seminar in one of the contributing departments is required.) The junior seminar is the closest Allegheny comes to focused, college‐wide curricular preparation for the senior project. In many departments, junior seminar work includes the first stages of students’ work on the senior project research and proposal; in many others, the seminar includes a substantial research project akin to senior project work, so that students practice the methodology of senior project work, even if they don’t begin work on that very project. As we have noted, all senior projects include a written document and an oral defense or presentation when the project has been completed. The College now archives these documents electronically, in “D‐space,” an archival system that is password‐protected and accessible to all faculty and current students. (Older senior projects are stored as hard copy in departments or the library.) These documents can vary in length and substance, of course, given different disciplinary conventions and methods. (English and history majors have written 100 page theses; mathematics majors have submitted twelve pages of original, elegantly proven theorems.) For some majors, the written document complements another original artifact or representation, such as a piece of visual art, a musical performance or original composition, the performance of a theatre major’s original play, or a poster summarizing research findings in a biology senior project. The College has for the past six or seven years hosted some version of a senior project celebration, during which select students have presented, in abbreviated form, the senior project to a wider audience. We have not canceled classes during these events, however, so attendance at them has been

Part 2 , Page: 12

uneven. Our Curriculum Committee is currently working on a revision of the academic calendar that includes a “protected day” at the end of the school year when such presentations can occur and draw a wider audience. It should be noted that a few departments hold their own version of such events, with seniors making poster presentations about the senior projects to students and faculty in the department. For these departments, such presentations constitute the main “oral” component of the senior project experience and are in keeping with the dissemination practices in such fields. Resources Six years ago the Provost initiated a point system by which faculty could be compensated, through course releases, for advising senior projects. The formula of this compensation equates every senior project (no matter its duration or course credit equivalents) with 4 project points. In single‐major projects, the faculty advisor usually receives 3 points, and the second reader receives one. In a joint project, the two advisors typically divide the 4 points in half. When a faculty member has accumulated 44 points, he or she becomes eligible for a course release, the timing of which is negotiated by the department chair and the Provost, depending on departmental circumstances. (Project points cannot be so “saved up” that a faculty member receives more than one course release at a time. On the other hand, project points can theoretically be “banked” indefinitely.) The Registrar tabulates the “earning” of such points and informs faculty of their totals each semester. In terms of the expenditure of faculty effort and time in service to the senior project, it is difficult to generalize accurately, since disparities in this area exist not only across departments but within them—and, at times, for individual faculty members, since each student compels his or her own amount of attention, guidance, and routine interaction. Still, speaking impressionistically, it is fair to say that directing five or six senior projects in one semester for many faculty members can approach the expenditure of time and energy required for teaching a stand‐alone class. In the departments with the highest number of majors, Psychology and Biology, faculty can advise up to 10 or more senior projects at a time. While these departments have devised efficiencies, such as “comp” groups that meet once a week as a kind of class, senior project advising in those cases can seem fully equivalent to teaching another four‐credit course (adding roughly 33% to a faculty member’s teaching load). Conversely, in departments with low majors‐to‐faculty ratios, senior project advising of course adds much less to the faculty workload, though in a few such “richly staffed” departments, faculty have developed very time‐intensive mentoring arrangements. In terms of the institutional (and specifically staffing) costs of mandating senior projects, finding a numerical answer implies a precision that is finally illusory or at odds with reality. Our Registrar is quite insistent on this point. Given that substantial caveat, however, we can say the following:

• Each senior project is worth 4 senior project points for faculty1 • 44 project points is equivalent to a course (ostensibly in the form of a faculty course release) • Most courses at Allegheny are worth 4 credit hours • 11 senior projects are roughly equivalent to one regular course, carrying 44 total credits hours • The current Allegheny Fact Book lists the average class size at 17, meaning, on average, a regular

class generates 68 student credit hours

1 While directing a senior project generates 3 project points, not 4, we’ve “rounded up” because in the course of advising 11 projects, most faculty would have also been second reader (a 1‐point endeavor) as often, making up the “gap” between 33 and 44 points in the process.

Part 2 , Page: 13

• Therefore, in terms of credit hours, the ratio of one senior project “course” equivalent to one regular course is 44:68 (or 11:17), meaning, on the staffing side, that it is about half again as expensive to “teach” senior projects as it is courses.

For students there are funds designated to support their work in the senior project. Some departments, such as Computer Science, have budget lines that can, to a modest degree, be used to underwrite the purchase of materials and other necessities for student projects. The Allegheny College Center for Experiential Learning can help fund students’ travel to conferences in which they present research undertaken in their senior projects. On rare occasions the Allegheny Student Government can also be a funding source for senior projects. Finally, the “Class of 1939 Senior Research Fund,” managed by the Provost, underwrites research and other senior‐project‐related expenses for students; these awards are usually capped at $500 per student. In terms of infrastructure or staffing, though, there are no designated facilities or technical support colleagues exclusively devoted to supporting senior project work.

Part 2 , Page: 14

Augustana College Senior Inquiry Capstone Description The capstone experience at Augustana College is called Senior Inquiry (SI). In most disciplines students produce a culminating project in an inquiry‐based curriculum that asks them to synthesize, analyze and reflect on their course work in the major, their broad college experience and its relationship to the needs of the community. The Senior Inquiry structures developed by various department and programs include a variety of models, such as traditional independent research, internships, literature reviews and analysis, civic engagement projects, and student teaching. The reflection component asks students to assess how their projects contribute to the intellectual, social, and physical communities of which they are a part, and how they could make a difference in those communities. Origin and History While approximately half the programs at Augustana had for many years included some sort of senior paper or project, these varied widely. In the early 2000’s our outcomes assessment data (particularly NSSE) indicated that the college needed to take steps toward formalizing and expanding its capstone expectations. In 2005, the dean and a group of faculty drafted a proposal to create an institutional response to the identified need. Ultimately, a committee of faculty led by an associate dean developed guidelines, approved by a vote of the full faculty, that departments and programs would use in designing a capstone requirement for their program, with proposals to be submitted for review. Specifically, Senior Inquiry was expected to be:

• Substantial in meaning and impact • Communicative of the discoveries made through the project • Reflective of one or more of the following:

o the nature of knowledge and inquiry o self‐awareness and connection with others o the relationship of individuals to a community

In addition to these outcomes, departments and programs were encouraged to design offerings that enable students to integrate two or more of the general education dispositions (attributes such as life‐long learning, responsible citizenship etc.) Given the breadth of these outcomes, departments selected the particular goals most relevant to the major. Departments and programs were expected to build assessment strategies into their proposals. Starting in 2006, departments and programs began work on creating their Senior Inquiry proposals. Typically, this involved careful examination of existing curricula to insure that students would be prepared for their senior projects and the redesign of the major to include appropriate supporting courses. Multiple models (i.e. traditional research; internship; civic engagement project) for the capstone experience were encouraged. Projects could extend beyond a single term. If a proposal requested additional staffing, it needed to be approved by the dean. Proposals were then vetted through a faculty committee and proceeded through the normal channels of faculty governance for approval. As of this writing in 2011, approximately 90% of Augustana students complete a Senior

Part 2 , Page: 15

Inquiry project with more being added each year as departments and programs implement their proposals. The unique feature about Senior Inquiry at Augustana is its reflective component. A significant portion of final papers and presentations focus on the students’ metacognitive interpretations of their learning, not only during the SI project but also as it connects to their course work at Augustana. Students are also expected to assess how their projects contribute to the intellectual, social, and geographic communities of which they are a part, and they are asked to consider how they have and could make a difference in those communities. Educational Objectives The objective of the SI process was that the student would demonstrate integration of knowledge within a discipline with all aspects of the Augustana experience and beyond. A goal is that programs would enhance meaningful one‐on‐one relationships between students and participating faculty and staff. These very broad, college‐wide parameters were operationalized by the individual departments and programs. Outcome statements typically discuss understanding foundational knowledge and skills, engaging in meaningful research, communicating results in both written and oral forms, and reflecting upon expertise in the major and integration of the liberal arts. Administration, Policies and Procedures The administration of the Senior Inquiry program is very decentralized. Each department or program has negotiated its own parameters in terms of credit requirements and load credit for mentoring. Sometimes if more than one option for SI is offered, these can vary even within the department or program. Three are the fewest credits required for SI, and nine credits are the most. In 2010‐11, 1,309 credits of SI were generated with 133 credits of assigned faculty load. Overall, 9.8 student credits were generated for each credit of faculty load, but this varied widely by department and program. In contrast, regular upper division courses generate about 20 student credit hours per credit hour of faculty load. In some cases, faculty were supervising/mentoring 3 students while in others it was 15‐20. Most frequently, departments create a designated SI course or courses that are included in the course catalog and scheduled for one or more terms with a designated instructor. Students register for the SI courses as usual and are all mentored by the instructor assigned to the course. Probably because the SI program is relative new, the faculty role is not as defined as it might be, and mentoring has not received a great deal of attention. Departments and programs assign mentors in many different ways. In some areas, the students are dispersed across departmental faculty so that every faculty member oversees projects. In other areas, certain faculty are assigned to the designated courses, and this assignment rotates through the department. Preparation for the faculty mentoring experience tends also to be handled within the department or program. Faculty will typically share syllabi and other resources. Choice for the SI focus also varies by department. In some instances, the topic is selected by the faculty member, but mainly students choose their projects. In almost every department/program, faculty attend the students’ final presentations, and in many cases also participate in grading them using a common rubric. Student experiences also vary widely both before and during the SI experience. Project requirements also offer alternatives. While the most common type of SI is a traditional research project, paper and

Part 2 , Page: 16

presentation suitable to the field, students in many departments/programs have options. The English Department, for example, offers a series of seminars from which students can choose. The Religion Department requires an internship or community based project before students enroll in the course where they research, write and present their papers. In Business Administration, and Multimedia Journalism, students can elect to complete an internship and accompanying reflective component. Students in Psychology and Communication Studies may opt to do a community based project. In Biology, students choose from a literature‐based inquiry (resulting in a literature review or grant proposal), laboratory or field research, or an off‐campus research opportunity. Students who are double majors are similarly confronted with a variety of scenarios. Some departments/programs substitute an upper division course if the student is completing a SI in another area. Other departments/programs collaborate to offer an interdisciplinary option that pulls the student’s areas of interest together. Finally, some departments see the SI as an integral component of the major and require that all students complete it even if they are also doing one elsewhere on campus. Grading uses the standard A‐F grading system. A pass/fail option is not available. If a project extends beyond one term, departments/programs can decide if each term will be graded separately or if the final project grade will be awarded at the end. Student Preparation Departments were expected to examine how they would prepare students for SI. The Biology Department, for example, thoroughly revamped their offerings according to a model they had developed called IRIS (Integrated Reflection and Inquiry in the Sciences). First year students now take a course called “Becoming Biologists” in which they explore what is means to enter the discourse of their discipline. Communication Studies requires that students select three of nine different one‐credit methods modules prior to the senior year. In Art, students plan for their senior exhibit during a junior year course. Psychology and sociology students complete a research methods course. Celebrations/recognition for completed projects A campus‐wide “Celebration of Learning” is held each spring as one venue for students to present their project results as a talk or poster session. Individual departments also sponsor presentations open to the campus. Students are also often encouraged to present at student research conferences sponsored by various disciplinary societies. Assessment As a part of the SI proposal, departments also were asked to describe how they would evaluate their final projects. Many departments/programs use the final project as an indicator of student learning. For example, all faculty in the department attend the final presentations and evaluate each on a common rubric. They draw upon observed strengths and weaknesses in modifying their curriculum and pedagogy.

Part 2 , Page: 17

Resources The staffs at the Tredway Library and the Reading‐Writing Center have been instrumental in assisting students. They have offered special instruction in databases and bibliographic software. They have also worked with students on writing their final papers. A number of financial initiatives have been institutionalized to support SI. Some students choose to use “Augie Choice” funding to support their senior inquiry. “Augie Choice” is a $2,000 grant for which junior and senior students can apply if they are conducting research, completing an internship, or studying internationally. In 2010‐2011, 16% of the students used this grant for research. Faculty can also apply for summer funding when doing research with students. Some departments allow students to complete a summer REU at other institutions as a means of fulfilling the SI expectation. Finally, the dean has recently established special funding to enable students to present their research at state, regional and national conferences.

Part 2 , Page: 18

The College of Wooster Capstone Structure Description Summary description Wooster’s Independent Study program (I.S.) has a long tradition of being a graduate requirement of all seniors since its introduction by President Harold Lowry in 1948. Completed in the area of the student’s major(s), the program’s emphasis is on the development of independent critical and creative thinking skills that are the foundation for learning throughout life. Over two semesters, each senior works individually with a faculty advisor (the “first reader”) on a topic agreed upon between the student and the advisor, culminating in a thesis or creative project, and defended in an oral presentation. Students with two majors either complete a Senior I.S. thesis in both departments or, more commonly, complete a single thesis on a topic acceptable to both departments. Often students present the results of their research at professional meetings in their discipline, publish results in peer‐reviewed journals or in creative periodicals, or continue their research in graduate school. The theses are due on “I.S. Monday,” the first Monday after Spring Break, and are evaluated by the I.S. advisor (the first reader) and a second reader, who is typically another faculty member from the department of the student’s major. A more recent addition to Wooster’s I.S. tradition is the Senior Research Symposium, an event to which seniors are invited to share their work with the campus and local community; the symposium is held one Friday late in the spring semester, and all classes are cancelled. In order to provide the time needed to advise seniors, I.S. advisors receive a single course release for every five seniors advised over an academic year. Origin and history When Howard Lowry left Princeton University in 1944 to become president at Wooster, he brought with him the belief that Princeton’s independent study program should become an integral part of Wooster’s curriculum. Lowry argued that the most effective learning occurs through the independent effort of the student; that personal development is more than acquiring subject matter knowledge; and, that grappling with the basic problems of scholarship gives the student the confidence and abilities necessary for lifelong learning. As a fundamental component of a liberal arts education, Lowry also believed that participation in the program should be a requirement of all students. The curriculum was revised in 1948 to include a four‐semester, twelve‐credit program in independent study. All seniors sat for a senior comprehensive exam to test disciplinary knowledge (a check on breadth within the discipline) and a field examination to measure progress in the area of the student’s project (a check on depth). By 1953, the comprehensive exam was largely gone and the field exam had become an oral defense of the thesis in many departments and in others a written response to questions about the thesis. Eventually the Independent Study program was reduced to three semesters and a required Junior Independent Study was instituted as a prerequisite for registering for Senior Independent Study in the senior year. From the beginning departments were given latitude in how they implemented the program, including how topics were selected, how mentors were assigned, how the mentoring was done, and how the final grade was determined. Over time each department has produced a system that reflects the discipline’s unique ways of thinking. Indeed, I.S. is regarded as moving students from studying in a discipline to practicing in a discipline. Today, Wooster faculty members regard I.S. as the culmination of a four‐year academic journey and as a framework for thinking and inquiry that brings cohesion to the curriculum. Most assessment within the disciplines at The College of Wooster began with the development of rubrics to assess the written I.S. thesis, the oral defense, and/or the I.S. process. For example, in the

Part 2 , Page: 19

Philosophy Department, the Junior I.S. is considered the critical point in the curriculum in which a student begins to transition from studying philosophy to doing philosophy. Assessment practices in the Philosophy Department, which involved the development of several rubrics and the use of primary trait analysis at key points in the department’s I.S. process, have played a vital role in the design of the department’s Junior I.S. course as a research seminar encouraging this transition. (See Rudisill, J. “The Transition from Studying Philosophy to Doing Philosophy.”Teaching Philosophy, v. 34 Issue 3, 2011, p. 241. Dr. Rudisill was awarded the 2012 Lenssen Prize for the best published article on teaching and learning in Philosophy in 2010 and 2011.) Educational objectives Several documents describe the rationale and general goals of the Independent Study program. An enduring aspect of the I.S. Program has been the creation of a body of scholarly and/or creative work that was generated independently by the student using the tools and theories of a discipline and that somehow advanced or otherwise contributed to a field of study. The current curriculum, “A Wooster Education,” was adopted in 2001. Consistent with the rationale given when I.S. was introduced “A Wooster Education” describes I.S. as epitomizing the goals of a liberal arts education, the heart of which is the development of engaged and independent learners. Similarly, Section 3 of the Faculty Handbook which contains the “Handbook for Independent Study” places I.S. in the context of a liberal arts education: “The capacity for individual inquiry and expression is a mark of a liberally educated person, and the objective of the Independent Study program is to provide an opportunity through which this capacity may be nurtured.” (Faculty Handbook, Section 3, p. 2) A study of Wooster’s independent study program was initiated in 1953. The preface to that work provides a justification for the creation of the program and is remarkably relevant to today’s thinking:

Another basic consideration is the need for men and women with initiative, imagination, and independence. We live in an age of mass communication which tends to breed conformity. At the same time there is greater need for men capable of original thinking than ever before. The tempo of social change today, imposed by advancing science and technology, is certainly without precedent in all our history. Adjusting to these changes will require leaders of imagination, creative intelligence, and critical judgments. Without them social stability and progress will be jeopardized. Thus society has a stake in the kind of education that develops originality, creativity, and independence. (p. viii)

Every department or program that offers a major has an I.S. handbook specific to its majors. Some of these handbooks include the learning goals for the major and, at least indirectly, places I.S. in the context of those goals. No handbook offers specific learning goals for its I.S. However, in most departments the learning goals and I.S. come together in the rubrics that are used to evaluate I.S. theses. Administration, Policies and Procedures Institutional oversight: There is no central committee charged with overseeing the Independent Study program. Issues relating to the Independent Study curriculum are discussed by the Educational Policy Committee. No review of the I.S. program has been done in recent memory. Student Course Credits: In most departments Independent Study is a three‐course sequence beginning with Junior Independent Study (I.S. 401), which is a prerequisite for registering for the first course in Senior Independent Study. A few departments lack a distinct Junior I.S. course, choosing instead to incorporate Junior I.S.‐like elements into a course in the major that students typically complete in their Junior year. For all students, Senior Independent Study consists of two courses: I.S. 451 in the fall

Part 2 , Page: 20

and I.S. 452 in the spring. A “grade” of “Satisfactory” must be received in I.S. 451 in order to register for I.S. 452. Each full course at Wooster is considered to be the equivalent of four credit hours, so all Senior I.S. courses count for eight credit hours. Double majors completing a single I.S. will register for 451 in one department and 452 in the second department. Faculty Teaching Credits: The teaching load at Wooster is 5.5 teaching credits per year. Faculty members receive one course release for advising five IS students in both IS 451 and 452 during students’ senior year. The course release is taken in the academic year the students are advised. Faculty members may “bank” teaching credits. Hence, a faculty member advising seven students may take a single course release and bank the remaining .42 credit hours (0.2x2semesters). In a subsequent year, the faculty member might advise three students and draw on their banked credits to get a full course release. Topic selection: The process used to determine the student's I.S. topic varies by department, but is student‐driven and negotiated with the advisor. The degree to which topic selection is student driven varies by department. Many departments hold a meeting of rising seniors to discuss how I.S. is done in the department. This is often when the department’s I.S. Handbook is made available and students have an opportunity to ask questions about the process and possible topics. Faculty share their interests and ideas for I.S. topics through their department’s handbook, on the department web page, through individual meetings with students, or through a meeting with rising seniors. Some departments require the student to identify their topic by the end of their Junior year while others leave the selection to the beginning of the Senior year. Some departments allow the student to pursue a topic developed in their Junior I.S., while other departments require that the student pursue something different. Students in the sciences are more likely than students outside the sciences to work on a topic close to their advisor’s research area. Project types: The expectations for the Senior Independent Study project vary by department. In Psychology, seniors must complete an experimental data‐gathering project with a clear manipulation of at least one independent variable. In Physics the project must extend our knowledge of physics using at least one of the following techniques: experiment, simulation, theory. Some departments allow a wide range of Independent Study project possibilities. In English, for example, a student can do literary analysis, write a collection of short stories or poems, write a novella, pursue film studies, do news writing, write a memoir, or write a piece of creative nonfiction. In history, in addition to the traditional historical monograph, a student can produce a film documentary, produce a public exhibition, write an historical novel or develop a high school curriculum. The Theater and Dance program supports projects that are traditional thesis‐based, are based on acting, directing, technology and design, stage management, modern dance and play writing. I.S. Advisor selection policies/methods: The pairing of a senior with an I.S. advisor differs by department; considerations include student and advisor preferences, the student’s topic, and the need to distribute advising load. In some departments students submit a list of ordered preferences and an effort is made to match the student with his/her highest preference. In other departments, faculty will accept students on a first‐come basis until the faculty member has reached his/her I.S. advising load for the year. It is possible for the I.S. experience to be the student’s first time working with a faculty member or for a student to be assigned to a visiting faculty member. Expectations/requirements for the mentor: Section 3 of the Faculty Handbook, which contains the “Handbook for Independent Study,” outlines the expectations of the I.S. advisor. These include:

Part 2 , Page: 21

• helping to identify a topic that will challenge the student, but is doable given the student’s abilities and the resources available;

• meeting with the student on a regular basis (3/4 to 1 hour per week on average, but this varies greatly by department) during which the advisor helps guide the student toward successful completion of his/her thesis;

• assisting with editing of the thesis; and • providing the student with a written evaluation of the final work submitted.

All faculty members are expected to submit course evaluations for two different courses each year. However, few departments systematically evaluate faculty as I.S. advisors. An informal evaluation is done as part of the renewal, tenure, and promotion decisions at which time the faculty member is asked to provide a list of I.S. advisees who might be asked to comment on the quality and nature of the faculty member’s advising. Grading policies/processes: The I.S. thesis is graded “No Credit,” “Satisfactory,” “Good,” or “Honors.” The final grade is decided on the basis of the work accomplished during each of the semesters, the quality of the completed thesis, and the oral defense of the thesis. Each thesis is evaluated by at least two faculty members (the first and second readers; the first reader being the student’s I.S. advisor), who jointly assign the grade. Some departments hold a meeting to discuss assignment of I.S. grades. Where there is disagreement that cannot be resolved, a third reader may become involved.

General Requirements and Expectations The Handbook for Independent Study in the Faculty Handbook describes the three elements that make up an Independent Study thesis or equivalent project:

Content ‐ Students differ in their individual interests and the requirements for various courses of study are not uniform; consequently, there are few rules for the proper choice of content for I.S. projects. A well‐selected thesis or project should be governed by such consideration as the significance of the subject for personal intellectual development, the progress of professional understanding, and the needs of society. Given the constraints imposed by available resources and time, the manageability of the topic is also an essential consideration.

Method ‐ Implicit in every inquiry is a method or plan which includes a logic, a design, or a deliberate conception of what is being attempted. The method selected will determine the techniques, devices, or tools appropriate for the project.

Form ‐ The successful completion of the project requires the communication of what has been discovered or developed. Through the form of the thesis or creative project, students share with others the results of their efforts. Whether by exposition or through an act of creative expression, the forms of communication should be consistent with the content and method and should be chosen carefully to communicate as clearly and forcefully as possible the results.

Typically there is an oral defense of the thesis. Within this context, each departmental I.S. Handbook provides additional requirements.

Student Preparation Independent Study is regarded as the culmination of a four‐year program. The general education requirements and courses taken in the student’s major are intended to prepare the student for Senior

Part 2 , Page: 22

Independent Study by developing disciplinary expertise, critical and creative thinking skills, and communication skills. Most departments require their majors to successfully complete a research methods course (often designated as Junior I.S.) before being allowed to register for Senior Independent Study. The development of writing skills begins with First Year Seminar and continues in a writing intensive course that must be completed prior to beginning Junior Independent Study. Resources The Copeland Fund for Independent Study was created in 1995. In 2011‐12 it will provide $90,000 in funding to seniors to support their projects. The process involves writing a proposal which is reviewed by a committee of faculty and is highly competitive. Seniors are eligible to apply for library study carrels which are theirs for the entire senior year. The number of carrels is fewer than the number of seniors and carrels are allocated on a first‐come‐first‐served basis. All students have access to several support centers (Educational Planning and Advising Center, Writing Center, Learning Center, and Math Center). Seniors frequently use the Writing Center for assistance with their thesis. In January 2012, the Collaborative Research Environment (CoRE) was opened in a renovated space in Andrews Library. CoRE offers collaborative spaces; presentation practice rooms; advanced technology; and support staff for research, writing, and new media needs. Its objective is to support undergraduate research generally, but it is seen as an important new resource for seniors. Celebrations/Recognition for Completed Projects The student submits two bound copies of his or her I.S. thesis to the Registrar by five p.m. on the first Monday after spring break. The Registrar reciprocates by giving the student a Tootsie Roll and a numbered black and yellow button that proclaims, "I did it." At five p.m., seniors who have submitted their thesis gather by the arch in Kauke Hall. The Scot pipers begin to play and the Dean for Curriculum and Academic Engagement and the pipe band lead the annual I.S. parade through the Kauke arch (in the opposite direction through which they walked as first years) and around campus. In late April classes are cancelled on a Friday to hold the Senior Research Symposium during which seniors present the work they did for their Senior I.S. through presentations, posters, and exhibits. Each year the Wooster Magazine devotes an issue to that year’s I.S. projects. The College web page features short videos of students describing their I.S. experience, and Andrews Library has a public meeting space with a large touchscreen monitor with a similar set of videos. This location is part of the tour given by the Office of Admissions to prospective students. Formal Assessment Structures for Evaluation of the Capstone Program There has been no formal assessment of Independent Study in recent memory and there is no effort to use I.S. to assess general institutional learning objectives, including the recently adopted Graduate Qualities. Most departments and programs that offer I.S. use it as their direct measure of assessment of learning in the major or minor. The Teagle Capstone Project undertaken from 2009 to 2013 has been the first formal assessment of I.S. in decades.

Part 2 , Page: 23

Washington College Senior Capstone Experience

All Washington College students have been required to complete some form of senior capstone since the 1959‐1960 academic year when the college made the move to the current four‐course plan. The exact nature of the capstone has always varied across departments, largely as a reflection of the many different modes of inquiry existing at a liberal arts institution. Until the 2006‐2007 academic year, the capstone experience was known as the “Senior Obligation,” and neither students nor faculty received course credit for completing the obligation. Due to growing student and faculty concern over workload issues, the Faculty Affairs and Curriculum Committees began discussing changes to the obligation in 2005, and generated a proposal that was approved by the faculty and the Student Government Association in the Spring of 2006. Beginning in the Fall of 2006, the Senior Obligation became known as the “Senior Capstone Experience,” students began receiving four credits for completing the capstone, and faculty began receiving one course credit for every 12 capstones they supervised. Educational Objectives As stated in the Washington College catalog, the Senior Capstone Experience (SCE) “requires students to demonstrate the ability to think critically and to engage in a project of active learning in their major field of studies. In the SCE, required of all graduating seniors, students integrate acquired knowledge and skills in a senior project demonstrating mastery of a body of knowledge and intellectual accomplishment that goes significantly beyond classroom learning” (p.38). While the specific design of the capstone may vary, all capstones “will be informed by the following expectations:

• Demonstrated student initiative • Significant preparatory work • Active inquiry • Integration of acquired knowledge and skills • Culmination of previous academic work” (p.39)

For most students, the SCE also represents the culmination of four years of writing at Washington College that begins with a two‐semester sequence of writing intensive courses in the first year, continues with two semesters of writing intensive courses in the sophomore and junior years, and ends with the capstone. Administration, Policies and Procedures Our Washington College’s SCE program is administered almost entirely at the department level. We have no SCE committee, no lead administrator for the program and no college‐level administrative oversight of any sort. Although our college catalog states that, “The Curriculum Committee will review, at regular intervals, departmental policies regarding the Senior Capstone Experience to ensure compliance with the expectations listed above and overall equality of demands across departments,”(p.39) such a review has not yet been conducted. In the absence of centralized oversight, details regarding capstone policies are determined by departments, resulting in substantial variation across the college. While the College has always been aware of this variation and, to some degree, has even considered it to be a strength of the program, the degree of variability and its effects on students and faculty were not fully understood until the college

Part 2 , Page: 24

participated in the Teagle‐funded Capstone project. At Washington College, all students complete the SCE, all receive 4 credits for doing so and all faculty receive either a course release or a small stipend for every 12 capstones they supervise; aside from these constants, all other aspects of the SCE vary by department. For example, departments report that students work on their SCE’s between 2 and 25 weeks ( =13.56). Also, while 30% (N = 7) of departments allow students to choose the topic for their SCE, 65% (N = 13) rely on a process of negotiation between student and mentor. The final topic is usually allied with the faculty mentor’s interests and expertise (65% indicated that this occurs “usually” or “always”), but is much less likely to be allied with the faculty mentor’s research (21% indicated that this occurs “usually” or “always”). Perhaps in part due to the high level of inter‐departmental variation, no college‐wide mentoring or training of SCE mentors occurs, and there are no college‐wide, formal expectations or requirements for mentors. However, many departments engage in informal mentoring of new SCE mentors during which the departmental expectations and requirements are made clear. Such mentoring is usually at the discretion of each department chair, and to the best of our knowledge neither the college nor any department has ever produced any sort of handbook for mentors specifying these expectations and requirements. Similar variability exists in the selection of faculty mentors with 48% (N = 11) of departments reporting that mentors are chosen by students, 30% (N = 7) reporting that pairings are negotiated between students and mentors, and 13% (N = 3) indicating that students are assigned a mentor by the department. In addition, in one department all faculty mentor every student and in another, one faculty member mentors all students. Students usually do get their first choice for mentor (83% indicated that this occurs “usually” or “always”), and when they do not, it is usually due to a need to equally distribute the mentoring load. Grading policies are also variable with most departments (75%; N = 12) utilizing the Pass/Fail/Honors system that had been universal before 2006, and a few departments (25%; N = 4) utilizing traditional letter grades plus Honors. Also, 47% (N = 9) of departments have only the mentor grade the SCE, 26% (N = 5) also use a second reader, 21% (N = 4) require the entire department to grade each SCE and 5% (N = 1) employ a departmental committee. Most departments (63%; N = 10) reported that they did employ a grading rubric to determine capstone grades, while a significant minority (37%; N = 6) reported that they did not. Finally, double majors complete a single, combined capstone about 50% of the time. Whether the capstone is combined or separate, each faculty mentor receives full credit (1/12) for that student, but the student receives only one course credit. General/Core Requirements The only college‐wide requirements are that every student must earn a passing grade on the SCE, that the SCE must be completed by the last day of classes in one’s senior year, and that the student must electronically submit the completed SCE to the library. Student Preparation Of the 16 departments at Washington College completing our capstone Departmental Administration

X

Part 2 , Page: 25

survey, 69% (N = 11) reported that they offered a course specifically designed to prepare students for the capstone. Depending upon the department, these preparatory courses include Junior Seminars, Senior Seminars, and various research methods courses. Virtually all of these preparatory courses involved learning methods useful for the SCE, determining the SCE topic, developing a capstone proposal, starting work on the SCE, and refining discipline specific communication skills. About half included assigning students to SCE mentors, and only 12% (N = 2) prepared students for a comprehensive exam. Description of Capstone Types Capstone types vary widely across departments, but also within departments. Of the 15 departments responding to this question, 47% (N = 7) offer more than one capstone option; five departments offer two options, while two departments offer three options. The available types are listed below.

• Traditional thesis (all Departments offer this as an option) • Visual thesis (Art) • Curating thesis (Art) • Comprehensive exams (Art, Biology, Economics, English, Modern Languages) • Drama Production thesis (directing, performance or design) • Playwriting thesis • Solo recital (Music) • Extended composition (Music) • Lecture recital (Music) • Programming project (Computer Science) • Strategic analysis of a firm (Business Management) • Experiential (Business Management) • Experimental capstone (Biology, Chemistry, Psychology)

Celebration/recognition for Completed Capstones Unfortunately, Washington College does not have a college‐wide celebration, but a number of departments host events for this purpose. For example, the Biology, Chemistry and Psychology departments host separate poster sessions in which seniors present their completed SCE’s to other students, faculty, administrators and parents. Also, students completing a visual thesis present their work at the Annual Student Art Show, Drama students present their productions, and all students submit their capstones to the college library’s online database. Formal Assessment Structures for Evaluation of the Capstone Program The college engages in no formal assessment of the capstone program. The course is not evaluated by students using our standard course evaluation form (nor could it effectively be evaluated using this form). Some departments engage in yearly, informal evaluations of their programs, typically through intra‐departmental discussions of the strengths and weaknesses of graduating seniors. As mentioned above, the college catalog does state that the Curriculum Committee will periodically evaluate the SCE program, but such an evaluation has not occurred since the creation of the new SCE program in 2006.

Part 2 , Page: 26

Resources Faculty members at Washington College receive either one course credit or a stipend ($3,000) for every 12 SCE’s they mentor. Credits are tracked by Department Chairs and by the Registrar, and faculty must take the course release or stipend when they reach 12 credits (i.e., they cannot “bank” 24 credits and take two course releases). The decision, in 2006, to begin giving faculty course credit for supervising SCE’s was intended to provide faculty with more time to devote to capstone mentoring. However, the college has always struggled to find and fund qualified adjuncts to cover course releases, so the majority of faculty members choose to take the stipend, thereby defeating the purpose of the course credit. The 12 to 1 ratio was chosen to reflect the College’s advertised 12 to 1 student/faculty ratio, but may not be an equitable rate when the SCE workload is compared to the workload for a typical course. Faculty reported meeting with each SCE student for an average of 1.41 hours per week, and spending an average of 2.88 hours per week working on all aspects (e.g., meetings, reading drafts, etc.) of each SCE. This means that faculty mentors are meeting with SCE advisees for an average of 17 hours per week (1.41 x 12) and working almost 35 hours per week (2.88 x 12) for one SCE course credit, but meeting with students for only 3 hours per week (and certainly working something less than 35 hours per week) for one typical course. As for other resources related to the SCE, most departments reported that students received no funding support, though Chemistry and Drama reported providing funding to 100% of SCE students, and Biology, Psychology and History reported funding 20‐30%. Two departments mentioned inadequate library resources for supporting capstones, and three suggested increased funding to support student conference presentations. While we have no funding sources specifically devoted to the SCE, some seniors do receive support for their projects through the Cater Society of Junior Fellows, and through several fellowships.

Part 2 , Page: 27

Summary Notes on the Department Policies and Administration Survey

This survey was completed by 108 departments/programs completed the survey. Respondents were fairly evenly distributed by school and the three major academic divisions (humanities, natural sciences, and social sciences).

Highlights:

• 67% of departments have a course specifically preparatory for the capstone • Departments with a preparatory courses reported it covered the following items to the

extent shown below:

Please describe to what extent the following items are covered in this preparatory course:

% not at all/ very little

% to a great extent

Mean (4 pt scale)

10 Refining discipline‐specific communication skills 4% 70% 3.19 6 Learning methods useful for the senior capstone 4% 65% 3.80 7 Determining the topic of the senior capstone 17% 59% 3.59 8 Creating a senior capstone proposal 24% 54% 3.60 11 Assigning students to senior capstone advisors 49% 39% 2.68 9 Starting work on the senior capstone 37% 27% 3.34 12 Preparation for a comprehensive exam 94% 3% 2.37

• 75% of the programs who reported their capstone had a fixed number of credit hours

indicated it was 4 semester credit hours or fewer. 5.6% reported 8 credit hours, the nominal amount expected for school Red.

• The mentoring workload is distributed among faculty mostly by a combination of student requests and a need to balance workload:

DeptCap20 What best describes how the capstone mentoring workload is distributed among department faculty?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid 0 other 22 20.4 24.4 24.41 by student requests for individual faculty

31 28.7 34.4 58.9

2 by assignment of faculty to a scheduled capstone seminar or course

19 17.6 21.1 80.0

3 by a department policy that balances loads

18 16.7 20.0 100.0

Total 90 83.3 100.0 Missing 999999 18 16.7 Total 108 100.0

Part 2 , Page: 28

• The most common practice for double majors is for students to do a single combined capstone:

DeptCap22 How often does a student in your department who is a double major do a single combined capstone?


Cumulative Percent

Valid 1 rarely/never 17 15.7 19.3 19.32 occasionally 19 17.6 21.6 40.93 about half the time 13 12.0 14.8 55.74 usually 30 27.8 34.1 89.85 always 9 8.3 10.2 100.0Total 88 81.5 100.0

Missing 999999 20 18.5 Total 108 100.0

• About half of departments report using traditional letter graded or letter grades plus honors:

What grading system is used for the capstone? Check all that apply. % yes Pass/Fail 5.6 Pass/Fail/Honors 11.1 Honors/Good/Satisfactory/No Credit 22.2 Traditional letter grades 45.4 Traditional letter grades/honors 4.6 Other (please specify)

• Over ¾ of departments involve more than just the mentor in assigning the grade. Those who selected “Other” almost all indicated that the reader(s) recommended a grade, with the grades for the department’s capstones reviewed by the department.

Who reviews the capstone for grading? Check all that apply. % yes Mentor only 22.2 Mentor and second reader 46.3 Committee of department faculty 7.4 Committee of department and external faculty 0 The entire department 12 Other 13

Part 2 , Page: 29

• Using a rubric in determining the grade is a reported practice by 47% of departments, while 53 do not use a rubric.

• Departments report funding to support student capstone projects varies from none to providing a fixed amount, to access to an endowment fund, or other individual fund (Augie Choice). 37% of departments report no students receive funding, 16% report all students receive funding.

• In response to “Please indicate any areas where you think support for your department’s capstones is strong or inadequate”, 10 departments listed both a strong and inadequate area, 14 only a strong area, and 27 only an inadequate area. The predominate sense is that departments are in need additional resources to support their capstone programs.

• The median reported percentage of students who do not pass the department’s capstone is 2%.

• The median reported percentage of students who do not graduate due to failure to complete the department’s capstone is 1%.

• The median reported percentage of students who had an undergraduate research experiences outside of the context of a course classroom was 20%.

• The median estimate for the percentage of students who present their capstone work at a professional or undergraduate conference was 10%.

• The median estimate for the percentage of students who publish their capstone work in professional journals was 2%.

Please see our DropBox for more a more detailed report on the results, including listings of the open‐ended responses.

Part 2 , Page: 30

3/1/2012 Page 1

Summary Notes on the Capstone Description Survey

105 responses were received for this survey. Departments/programs were asked to complete the survey for each distinct type of capstone they offered, so multiple submissions were possible from a single department/program. Respondents were fairly evenly distributed by school and the three major academic divisions (humanities, natural sciences, and social sciences).

Highlights:

• Below are the results of a series of questions about the importance of various capstone characteristics, in descending order of the percent “essential”. These are the overall results, and one would expect significant variation if the results were broken down by academic division.

Please indicate the degree of importance each of the following has as part of capstones of this type:

% not imp %

essential

Mean (4 pt scale)

Production of a written thesis or substantial paper 2.1% 86.6% 3.80

An oral examination of the project 6.0% 78.3% 3.59

A literature search and review 1.9% 72.8% 3.60

An oral presentation of project progress or results 8.9% 64.4% 3.34

A reflective analysis concerning the project (e.g., its value, lessons learned, contribution to the discipline or to self‐knowledge, etc.)

9.3% 54.7% 3.19

Generation of data through direct measurement (e.g. through experiments, observation, questionnaires, interviews, etc.)

25.3% 42.7% 2.68

Creation of or contribution to an artistic performance or product (music, art, theater, literary work ...)

34.9% 32.6% 2.37

Use of other library services (e.g. library instruction, reference librarian assistance, special collections)

19.6% 28.4% 2.63

A poster presentation of project results 38.2% 27.9% 2.25

Laboratory experimentation 32.7% 26.9% 2.40

Statistical analysis of data 20.5% 21.9% 2.40

Clinical or practicum experiences 51.4% 21.6% 2.03

A written examination 71.0% 19.4% 1.74

Collaboration with other students 35.4% 13.4% 2.04

Field study (e.g. research or projects carried out on location) 30.6% 11.3% 2.05

Internship experiences 60.0% 8.0% 1.62

Civic engagement or service learning experiences 52.7% 7.3% 1.71

Questionnaire construction and analysis 49.1% 5.7% 1.68

Part 2 , Page: 31

3/1/2012 Page 2

• 90% of respondents indicated the mentor was assigned prior to the beginning of the senior year, 10% after the senior capstone has begun.

• Pairing of the student and mentor most frequently, but not always, involves student input or choice:

How is a student typically paired with a mentor for the capstone? Valid Percent

0 other

7.7

1 by enrolling in a course (e.g. capstone seminar) with a departmentally assigned instructor

12.5

2 negotiated between student and mentor

33.7

3 assigned by the department using student preferences

40.4

4 assigned by the department not using student preferences

5.8

Total

100.0

• The predominant mentoring style is 1-1 mentoring:

CapType34 If mentors supervise multiple students at one time, how is the mentoring typically structured (select the best option):

Valid Percent

1 using one‐on‐one mentoring only

41.0 2 primarily using one‐on‐one mentoring, with less frequent group meetings

29.0

3 primarily using group meetings (e.g. a seminar), with incidental individual mentoring

11.0

4 primarily using meetings (e.g. seminar) but with significant structured individual mentoring

8.0

5 varies by faculty member

12.0

Total

101.0

• 88% of respondents report that the student usually or always is assigned to the mentor of their first choice. The most common reasons reported why the student would not get their first choice are to balance faculty workloads are to better match faculty interests or expertise.

• The topic of the capstone is most frequently negotiated between the student and mentor (53%) or by student selection (31%).

Part 2 , Page: 32

3/1/2012 Page 3

CapType36 Typically, how is the capstone topic determined? Valid Percent

0 other

11.7

1 student selection

31.1

2 mentor selection

3.9

3 negotiated between student and mentor

53.4

Total

100.0

• Capstone topics are generally aligned with the mentors interest or expertise, but not generally with the mentor’s creative, scholarly or research projects:

CapType38 How often are students’ projects allied with faculty mentors’ creative, scholarly, or research projects?

Valid Percent

1 rarely/never

19.6

2 occasionally

41.2

3 about half the time

18.6

4 usually

17.6

5 always

2.9

Total

100.0

CapType39 How often are student’s projects allied with faculty mentors’ interests or expertise?

Valid Percent

1 rarely/never

2.0

2 occasionally

19.6

3 about half the time

15.7

4 usually

52.9

5 always

9.8

Total

100.0

Please see our DropBox materials for a more detailed report, including written remarks to open-ended items.

Part 2 , Page: 33

PART 3: CAMPUS IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

A report from each campus of capstone improvement projects they intend to pursue as a result of their review of the data


Part 3, Page: 1

Allegheny College Report to be inserted here.

Part 3, Page: 2

AUGUSTANA COLLEGE Overall Reactions Like our colleagues at the other institutions, we concluded that senior capstones are remarkably successful endeavors for both students and faculty. As the culminating experience in the major, senior inquiry has a powerful impact upon students. On the pre-post surveys our students reported significant gains in scholarly skills such a locating material, supporting arguments with evidence and using feedback, and in academic abilities such as writing, critical thinking and intellectual confidence. Survey results demonstrated that they enjoyed doing research and possessing research skills. In the written comments, students further indicated that they had developed an understanding of their abilities, were better able to manage projects, and liked working closely with their mentors. Augustana faculty were also very positive about the experience, even more so than faculty at other institutions. Their pre-post surveys reported gains in student communication skills, project management abilities, intellectual engagement and improved critical thinking. Their comments indicated that they enjoyed working with the students and learning about topics outside their area of expertise. Overall, both faculty and students perceive senior inquiry as one that is worthwhile and powerful. Specific Observations We were heartened to learn that both students and faculty saw SI as contributing to the development of public speaking abilities. A survey of recent alums conducted separately by our Advancement and Communications Offices (Dehne & Associates, 2011) suggested that our graduates were less than satisfied with their abilities to speak publically. Many of the graduates in this separate survey would not have completed the intensive SI experience that requires some form of public presentation. It is hoped that this gain reported in the capstone surveys and focus groups are illustrative of a trend that will assist our students in being better prepared for public speaking opportunities that they encounter as graduates. It will be a finding to monitor in the future. We found our results raised questions for us to investigate in several areas.

1. In comparing pre-post student responses, Augustana was the only school that showed declines in satisfaction with instruction in the major field and with the overall college experience. While the decline on this factor was slight (4.44 to 4.37), it was statistically significant and should be further investigated.

2. While not all of our alums that returned the alumni survey also completed capstone experiences, on the whole they were less positive about the experiences they have had and its contribution to their development.

3. Our focus groups report suggested that we needed to do some work institutionalizing the SI experience, building the reflective component and enhance our assessment of the senior experience.

Part 3, Page: 3

Next Steps We have two outcomes that we would like to implement.

1) We will recommend to our Nominations and Rules Committee the establishment of a SI subcommittee of our Educational Policies Committee. Right now, we don’t have any oversight committee for SI. Once department proposals were approved, the committee disbanded. An oversight committee would insure that the many variations of our experience maintain a strong standard. It will also help us:

• identify and share best practices, • develop support services in place to assist students and faculty, • consider issues such as workload and rewards for mentoring are adequately

addressed. • continue to strengthen the reflective component of SI.

2) We will recommend that the Assessment for Improvement Committee build upon this study, finding ways to use the instruments and information to insure ongoing monitoring of the SI experience. Our previous NSSE results have suggested that academic rigor slips somewhat in the senior year. The Assessment for Improvement Committee should study whether SI is addressing this concern.

Part 3, Page: 4

College of Wooster Report to be inserted here.

Part 3, Page: 5

Washington College Campus Report

All Washington College (WC) students have been required to complete some form of senior capstone since the 1959‐1960 academic year when the College made the move to the current four‐course plan. The capstone experience was known as the “Senior Obligation,” and neither students nor faculty received course credit for completing the obligation. Due to growing student and faculty concern over workload issues, the College developed the current “Senior Capstone Experience” (SCE) in the Fall of 2006, and students began receiving four credits for completing the capstone, while faculty mentors earn one course credit for every 12 capstones they supervise. Through their SCE students are expected “to demonstrate the ability to think critically and to engage in a project of active learning in their major field of studies. In the SCE, required of all graduating seniors, students integrate acquired knowledge and skills in a senior project demonstrating mastery of a body of knowledge and intellectual accomplishment that goes significantly beyond classroom learning” (Washington College Catalog, p.38). While the specific design of the capstone varies across departments, all capstones “will be informed by the following expectations:

• Demonstrated student initiative • Significant preparatory work • Active inquiry • Integration of acquired knowledge and skills • Culmination of previous academic work” (Washington College Catalog, p.39)

For most students, the SCE also represents the culmination of four years of writing at Washington College that begins with a two‐semester sequence of writing intensive courses in the first year, continues with two semesters of writing intensive courses in the sophomore and junior years, and ends with the capstone. In the Summer of 2008, Washington College joined Allegheny College, Augustana College and The College of Wooster in planning a major assessment of the impact of the required capstone experiences at each of these four schools. The Teagle Foundation agreed to fund the project, and data collection began in the 2009‐2010 academic year and continued through the 2011‐2012 academic year. Prior to the beginning of this project, Washington College had never conducted a formal assessment of the SCE. While the college currently requires course evaluations for every course, no such evaluation of the SCE occurs. Also, although the Washington College Catalog states that the Curriculum Committee will review the SCE program at regular intervals, these reviews have never taken place. The data reported below are based on pre‐ and post‐capstone surveys of seniors and their faculty mentors conducted during the 2009‐2010 and 2010‐2011 academic years; seven focus group discussions conducted by two Teagle Scholars and involving nine untenured faculty mentors, eight tenured faculty mentors, eight seniors from the Natural Sciences and

Part 3, Page: 6

Mathematics division, seven seniors from the Humanities division, nine seniors from the Social Sciences division, seven staff members and four administrators; and a survey sent to Washington College alumni from the classes of 1999 and 2004.

What we’re doing well Faculty Perspective Survey Data The Senior Capstone Experience is clearly having a number of beneficial effects on Washington College students. Faculty reported significant precapstone‐postcapstone improvements in students’ ability to write in a clear and articulate manner (Mpre=3.80, Mpst=3.93), deliver an effective oral presentation (Mpre=3.83, Mpst=4.08), identify a manageable set of project goals (Mpre=3.93, Mpst=4.05), persist when faced with perceptual and practical difficulties (Mpre=3.93, Mpst=4.20), synthesize information to produce insights that expand their understanding (Mpre=3.81, Mpst=4.04), logically interpret and evaluate main points of source material (Mpre=3.87, Mpst=4.07), support arguments with appropriate evidence (Mpre=3.85, Mpst=4.10), use disciplinary knowledge and methods appropriately (Mpre=3.78, Mpst=4.10), demonstrate appropriate confidence in own intellectual ability (Mpre=3.74, Mpst=4.00), address opposing arguments or alternative explanations (Mpre=3.56, Mpst=3.78) and display accurate awareness of their own abilities and limitations (Mpre=3.77, Mpst=3.99). In addition, Faculty Mentors’ responses to the open‐ended survey questions highlighted a number of perceived benefits. In response to our request to, “Please note any particularly significant benefits you think the student gained from this capstone,” faculty most frequently mentioned critical thinking skills (17% of the total comments), research skills (14%) and written communication skills (12%). Also, when asked to, “Please describe areas where the student was exceptionally well prepared for this capstone,” Faculty Mentors mentioned personal skills and attributes (work ethic, motivation, independence) most frequently (17.8%), followed closely by written communication skills (17.4%). Finally, when asked to, “Please share any other observations you have about this capstone you think may be of interest,” the most common response provided by Faculty Mentors was that the capstone outcome was good or excellent (9.2%), followed by mentioning that the mentoring experience was positive for the mentor (7.8%). Focus Group Data Faculty comments during the campus focus groups were also quite positive. The Faculty saw the SCE as a large project that provides an opportunity to put into practice the research, analysis, synthesis, and time management skills developed over the course of a student’s academic career. The end result is a project that comprises a large body of work that would be summative and which could contain components showcasing independent and original work. Faculty saw the project as building the students’ skills and, in some cases, facilitating a genuinely transformative experience.

Part 3, Page: 7

Faculty members also saw their supervision of capstones as having a positive impact on their own work. Faculty members reported being satisfied with the opportunity to work closely with their students as a natural extension of their research and teaching. Student Perspective Survey Data Washington College seniors’ initial expectations regarding the capstone were quite positive (Mpre=4.1 on a 5‐point scale), although their ratings were the lowest of the four institutions that participated in the project. Our students’ highest scores came on their expectation that the capstone would be intellectually challenging (Mpre =4.51), more engaging than regular coursework (Mpre=4.39), and would lead to a better understanding of their skills, abilities and interests (Mpre=4.33). In fact, when compared to their typical academic work, in the capstone our students reported being significantly more likely to exhibit a wide range of scholarly skills including locating appropriate source materials, using disciplinary knowledge and methods appropriately, supporting arguments with appropriate evidence, showing originality, synthesizing information to produce insights that expanded their understanding, showing evidence of independent thinking, showing skill with quantitative reasoning, persisting when faced with conceptual and practical difficulties, using feedback to assess their performance and integrating ideas or information from various sources. Our students also showed significant precapstone‐postcapstone improvements in their ratings of their own academic ability (Mpre=4.0, Mpst=4.1), creativity (Mpre=3.78, Mpst=3.89), research skills (Mpre=3.61, Mpst=3.81), and enjoyment of doing research (Mpre=3.52, Mpst=3.79). Washington College students indicated that the SCE made the greatest contributions to their development of the abilities to manage a large project (Mpst=4.35 on a five‐point scale), think critically and analytically (Mpst=4.3), think creatively (Mpst=4.24; WC scored highest of the 4 schools) and have confidence in their own abilities (Mpst=4.27).

In addition, students’ responses to the open‐ended survey questions highlighted a number of perceived benefits. In response to our request to, “Please describe any particularly positive or negative aspects of your capstone experience,” students reported more positive (55%) than negative (44%), but this was the worst ratio of any of the four schools involved in the project. The most frequently reported positive responses were comments about faculty mentors (17% of total responses; e.g., great overall, helpful, supportive, available, interested, gave good feedback), and such comments were more common at WC than at any of the other three schools.

Part 3, Page: 8

Comments that student appreciated the freedom to choose their topic and direct their project were next most frequent (5.9%), followed by comments concerning improved project management skills (4.7%). When asked, “What did you learn about yourself as a result of the capstone experience?” 69.5% of the students who responded listed strengths, 12.8% listed limitations and 12.2% listed an insight. More specifically, 25.6% learned that they can manage and complete a large project, 11.6%) learned that they have good writing skills and 9.1% learned that they need to pay attention to and improve their project management skills. When we asked the students, “What aspects of the capstone experience do you think will be of the most value to you after you graduate?” the largest percentage of those who responded (18.2%) mentioned project management skills (specifically time management), followed by preparation for graduate/professional school (12.5%), development of research skills (11.4%) and development of writing skills (9.7%). Overall, Washington College Seniors offered extremely positive rating of their Faculty Mentors (Mpst =4.41). Our students were particularly pleased with their mentors’ experience in capstone advising, ability to give helpful advice, encouragement of their independence and with the overall comfort level of the mentoring relationship. Focus Group Data During the focus group meetings, students often mentioned their personal growth in areas like research and writing skills development, time management, clarification of personal goals, and self‐confidence in the academic context as important benefits of the SCE. In most cases, the students were satisfied with the topic of their SCE and the nature of their work, and appeared to have developed confidence and a greater love for their capstone subject as they progressed. The students mostly felt that they had been well‐prepared for writing their theses, but somewhat less prepared with regard to their time management skills. Alumni Perspective Of the various aspects of the SCE that might contribute to development, our alumni rated ability to write effectively (55.2% very much), skill in interpreting data, evidence and texts (50.9% very much) and managing a large project (43.9% very much) most highly, and ability to make an effective oral presentation (29.8% very much) lowest. Also, 81% agreed or strongly agreed (vs. 8.6% disagreed or strongly disagreed) that the SCE had a positive influence on their intellectual growth, 69.5% (vs. 10.2%) said it was more intellectually challenging than a regular course, 61% (vs. 13.6%) said the SCE had a positive influence on their personal growth, 59.3% (vs. 13.6%) said the SCE led to better understanding of skills, abilities and interests and 55.9% (vs. 13.6%) said the SCE made them better prepared for a job or grad school.

Part 3, Page: 9

In the open‐ended questions, our alums most frequently mentioned that the capstone provided them with a sense of accomplishment (25% of comments), was good preparation for graduate school (22.5% of comments), gave them project management experience (especially time management, 17.5%) and that they had positive experiences with their mentors (20%).

Where we need improvement Faculty Perspective Survey Data While the data indicate that the WC Faculty have a very positive opinion of the SCE in an absolute sense, relative to the other three schools involved in the project, our scores tend to lag behind. For example, the WC Faculty Mentors’ ratings of seniors’ ability to demonstrate effective time management in completing tasks were the lowest of the four schools and showed no precapstone‐postcapstone differences (Mpre=3.78, Mpst=3.79). WC Faculty Mentors also reported that their students had the least postcapstone enthusiasm for their SCE topics of the four schools, and showed declines in enthusiasm from precapstone to postcapstone (Mpre=4.2, Mpst=4.1). This finding is particularly troubling since mentors’ ratings of students’ enthusiasm for their topic is a significant predictor of students’ ratings of the overall success of the SCE (r=+.35). Part of this lack of enthusiasm may stem from the fact that WC Faculty Mentors indicated that their students had the lowest degree of participation in developing and/or refining their capstone topic of the four schools (Mpst=3.97). When students fail to engage fully and take ownership for their SCE topic, it seems likely that they would not be as enthusiastic about the topic. In addition, WC Faculty Mentors scored the lowest of the four schools on many of the items on which they rated their own mentoring. WC mentors rated themselves lower than did the mentors at the other three schools in the degree to which they effectively guided students through their capstones (Mpst=4.23), felt comfortable working with students on their capstones (Mpst=4.51), felt comfortable supervising their capstones (Mpst=4.41), communicated well with their capstone students (Mpst=4.40) and encouraged their students to work independently (Mpst=4.48). It should be noted that since these responses were made on 5‐point scales, all of these ratings are extremely positive, just not quite as positive as the ratings from the other three schools. The largest negative discrepancies between WC and the other three schools occurred in mentors’ response to the item, “I met regularly with this student” (Mpst=3.94). WC Faculty also reported spending fewer hours per week meeting (individually or group) with their Senior Capstone students than did faculty at any of the other institutions (Mpst =1.41 hrs/wk).

Part 3, Page: 10

Findings regarding the quality of the mentoring relationship and the amount of time mentors spent with their capstone students are particularly important since mentors’ ratings of their relationship with their capstone students are a significant predictor of students’ ratings of the overall success of the SCE (r=+.282). In addition, Faculty Mentors’ responses to the open‐ended survey questions suggested several areas of concern. In response to our request to, “Please describe areas where the student should have been better prepared for this capstone,” mentors most frequently mentioned disciplinary knowledge, theory and ways of thinking (16.8% of the total responses) and written communication skills (16.8%). Critical thinking skills (16.2%) and project management skills (13%; particularly time management, planning, organization) were the next two most frequently mentioned concerns. When asked to, “Please share any other observations you have about this capstone you think may be of interest” the two items mentioned most frequently were positive (see above), but the next most frequent response was that the project didn’t deserve the number of credits awarded (6.1%). Focus Group Data A number of concerns also arose during the mentors’ focus group discussions. Faculty Mentors commented on the different standards and levels of preparation for the capstone experience that exist across departments. Most of the faculty concerns centered on the perception that there are disparities in degree of academic rigor, standards and workload between departments, and that greater uniformity would be beneficial. Mentors expressed concern over the disparity in workload required to supervise a traditional thesis vs. a comprehensive examination. Mentors also noted that while they enjoy the time they spend interacting one‐on‐one, such interactions reduce the time they have available to attend to other responsibilities. Student Perspective Survey Data As mentioned above, while our students’ expectations regarding the capstone were very positive (Mpre=4.1 on a 5‐point scale), they were the lowest of the four institutions. In particular, our students scored lowest on their expectation that the capstone would help them clarify career or graduate school objectives (Mpre=3.69) or better prepare them for a job or graduate school (Mpre=3.87). Students’ pre‐capstone expectations that the capstone would be helpful were one of the strongest predictors of their post‐capstone ratings of the overall success of the SCE (r=+.506). Our students reported the lowest levels of post‐capstone enthusiasm for their capstone topic of the four schools (Mpst=3.96), and while student ratings of their pre – post capstone enthusiasm declined at three of the four institutions, the drop was greatest at WC.

Part 3, Page: 11

WC students also scored lowest of the four schools in the extent to which they participated in developing/refining their topic (Mpst=4.11), a finding that mirrored the faculty response to the same item. Unlike the students at the other schools, our students did not report improved project management skills (planning, time management, identifying manageable goals), writing ability, ability to think critically, or intellectual self‐confidence from pre to postcapstone, and our students’ postcapstone scores on these items were the lowest of the four schools. The findings regarding project management skills are particularly disturbing since students’ perceptions that they had exhibited good project management skills are significant predictors of their ratings of the overall success of the SCE (r=+.429). WC students also reported no significant pre to postcapstone changes and low ratings of their public speaking ability and leadership ability, and no change but fairly average ratings of social self‐confidence. When compared to their ratings of their regular coursework prior to the capstone, our students rated their capstone work as less likely to include diverse perspectives, put together ideas and concepts from different courses, or increase understanding of someone else’s perspective. This unexpected finding held across all four institutions. The relationships students form with their mentors appear to be critical to the success of the capstone experience as students’ post‐capstone satisfaction with their capstone instruction (r=+.431) and their post‐capstone perceptions that their relationships with their mentors were helpful and comfortable (r=+.399) were significant predictors of their post‐capstone ratings of the overall success of the SCE. While our students were generally extremely positive in their ratings of their Faculty Mentors (Mpst=4.41 on a 5‐point scale), their ratings of whether their mentors met with them regularly (Mpst=3.93), effectively guided them (Mpst=4.09) and communicated well with them (Mpst=4.18) were the lowest of the four schools. The perceptions of the students closely parallel the ratings of the Faculty Mentors reported in the section above. Washington College students indicated that the SCE made the least contribution to their development of the ability to make an effective oral presentation (Mpst=3.42 on a 5‐point scale; WC scored lowest of the 4 schools), in acquiring research related skills (Mpst=4.04) and in learning ethical conduct in their field (Mpst=3.59). Students’ post‐capstone perceptions of the capstone as more intellectually engaging than a regular course were one of the strongest predictors of their post‐capstone ratings of the overall success of the SCE (r=+.622). Our students generally agreed with statements indicating that they worked harder on their capstone than on regular coursework (Mpst=4.10 on a 5‐point scale), that the capstone was more intellectually challenging than their regular coursework (Mpst=4.03) and that they developed more from the capstone than

Part 3, Page: 12

from a regular course (Mpst=3.74), but WC students had lower levels of agreement on each item than did students at each of the other three schools. Perhaps most disturbingly, WC students were less likely to agree with the statement, “Overall, I had a good capstone experience,” than were the students at the other three schools (Mpst=4.16 on a 5‐point scale). They also had the lowest levels of agreement with statements indicating that their capstone had a positive influence on their intellectual growth and interest in ideas (Mpst=4.11), their understanding of their discipline improved (Mpst=4.04), their capstone was more engaging than their regular coursework (Mpst=4.04), their capstone has led to a better understanding of their skills, abilities and interests (Mpst=4.01) and their capstone better prepared them for a job or graduate school (Mpst=3.74). In addition, students’ responses to the open‐ended survey questions noted several areas of concern. As noted above, in response to our request to, “Please describe any particularly positive or negative aspects of your capstone experience,” students reported more positive (55%) than negative (44%), but this was the worst ratio of any of the four schools involved in the project. The most frequently reported negative comments were about the experience being stressful, difficult or frustrating (10.7% of the responses), the mentor being unhelpful or unavailable, (9.5%, although WC had the lowest percentage of these comments) and difficulty balancing the capstone with other coursework (6.7%). When we asked seniors to, “Please tell us about any other aspects of your capstone that might be helpful to our study of the benefits of capstones,” WC seniors had the most negative and fewest positive comments. Of the total number of responses to this question, 38.5% were negative comments concerning issues of capstone administration, including a desire for more and better precapstone preparation and equitable standards across majors. Students also mentioned that the SCE was too time consuming and that comprehensive exams were too easy. Focus Group Data As were the faculty, students were concerned with the different levels of preparation for the capstone experience that exist across departments, and with the variation in standards and rigor across the College. Students believed that more uniformity of rigor and time requirements would be beneficial. In addition, many students felt that the time commitment for a senior capstone exceeds that of a normal four‐credit course and it affects the time they need for job searches and other valid commitments, and some students did not accept or understand the purpose of the SCE and saw it as onerous and a waste of time.

Part 3, Page: 13

Alumni Perspective Our alums (N=59) had the lowest rating (of the three schools whose alums completed capstones) of the overall capstone experience, but the rating was quite high (M=5.68 out of 7 – between good and very good). Summary The overall picture for Washington College is decidedly mixed. The SCE provides numerous benefits for WC students, including improvements in the abilities to

• write in a clear and articulate manner • synthesize information • persist in the face of difficulties • logically interpret and evaluate source material • support arguments with evidence • use disciplinary knowledge and methods • address opposing arguments • think critically, analytically and creatively • conduct independent research • manage a large project

The SCE also seems to add value to the educational experience above and beyond what could be provided by offering additional courses within or outside the major. So, in an absolute sense, the Washington College SCE is quite successful. However, when we compare the outcome of our SCE to that of the other three schools involved in this project, we rank last on many measures. In this relative sense, Washington College has a great deal of room for improvement. For example, Washington College ranked below the other schools in

• student enthusiasm for their SCE topic • student time management • effectiveness and frequency of mentoring • overall rating of the capstone experience

Students and faculty at Washington College also expressed heightened concern with the perceived variations in standards and rigor that exist across departments. So it appears as though the SCE is working well, but could be working even better. Toward this end, we conclude with several recommendations for actions intended to improve the outcome of the Washington College SCE.

Part 3, Page: 14

Campus Action Plan Develop Student and Faculty Mentor Handbooks

Students and mentors need to have a fuller understanding of the purpose of the SCE, and of the specific college and departmental guidelines that govern the process. While some WC departments expend a great deal of time and effort to educate students and new faculty mentors about the SCE, others do very little. A single handbook containing a discussion of general principles and guidelines, followed by separate chapters for each department, would add consistency, clarity, accountability and transparency to the SCE.

Take steps to reduce or eliminate reliance on Comprehensive Exams

Ratings of the WC SCE were below those at the other three schools involved in this project, and the primary difference between WC and these other schools is that we alone allow comprehensive exams in lieu of the traditional thesis. Ratings of the quality and quantity of mentoring students receive may be influenced by the fact that comprehensive exams do not allow for the same degree of collaborative interaction between students and faculty mentors that occurs with traditional theses. And since the mentoring relationship is an important determinant of the outcome of the SCE, the absence of such a relationship may explain why some WC students had a more negative perception of their overall capstone experience. In addition, both students and faculty mentors were aware of and concerned by the disparities in workload that exist when comprehensive exams can be used to satisfy the SCE requirement.

Develop a campuswide celebration of the SCE

While individual departments often have some sort of concluding celebration, Washington College does not take sufficient advantage of the opportunity to recognize, praise and reward students for their remarkable capstone achievements. Some schools set aside an entire day at the end of the year during which capstones are presented to the rest of the college community in a variety of different formats (e.g., plays, readings, poster sessions, art exhibits, etc.). Such a celebration would not only increase the feelings of pride and accomplishment among Seniors, but may also stimulate increased excitement and enthusiasm about the SCE among Juniors, and could generate publicity that would be helpful in recruiting, and in building the reputation of the college.

Institute yearly, formal, collegewide assessment of the SCE We assess all four credit courses at Washington College, except the SCE. Neither the individual capstones nor the SCE program as a whole has ever been formally assessed, and without such regular assessments, it is difficult to know whether any changes are successful or necessary.

Part 3, Page: 15

PART 4: SENIOR AND MENTOR SURVEYS: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES

NARRATIVE: Quantitative Results of the Senior and Mentor Surveys

TABLES:

Data Directory

4.1 Data Directory and Overall Means by Student Subgroup (All, School, Major, GPA Group, Gender)

Scales from Factor Analysis 4.2 Summary List of Capstone Survey Scales 4.3 Capstone Survey Scales and Component Items, Reliability Alphas and Loadings 4.4 Scale Inter‐correlations: Pre‐Capstone Student Survey 4.5 Scale Inter‐correlations: Post‐Capstone Student Survey 4.6 Scale Inter‐correlations: Pre‐ to Post‐Capstone Student Surveys 4.7 Scale Inter‐correlations: Pre, Post, and Pre to Post‐Capstone Faculty Surveys 4.8 Scale Inter‐correlations: Post Student with Post Faculty Scales 4.9 Scale Inter‐correlations: Post Mentor Survey Correlations of Scales with Summative Items

Scale Changes: Pre to Post Capstone, By Student Groups 4.10 Scale and Item Means and Pre/Post Changes by Student Subgroup (All, School, Major, GPA

Group, Gender) 4.11 Significant Pre/Post Changes for Scales and Sub‐items, by Student Subgroups 4.12 Significant Pre/Post Changes for Scales, by Student Subgroups 4.13 Summary Sheet: Means of Scales and Summative Items asked only on the Post‐Capstone Student

and Faculty Surveys

APPENDICES

4.1 Notes on Sample Bias Effects 4.2 Effects of Socio‐Economic Status 4.3 Notes on the Factorization of the Data 4.4 Mentor Evaluations vs. Student 4.5 Capstone Preparation: Importance as Capstone Preparation 4.6 Workload: Means of Student and Faculty Workload and Topic Selection/Enthusiasm Questions 4.7 What correlates with expecting to have a good capstone? 4.8 Success: Conditions Associated with a Successful Capstone (General Linear Modeling of and

correlates of “PostCapSuccessful”) 4.9 Double Majoring: Scale Mean Differences between Single Majors and Double Majors 4.10 Independence: Correlations of Items Relating to Student Independence 4.11 Grades and Capstone Ratings: Correspondence of Capstone Grades with Students’ Rating of the

Capstone

Part 4, Page: 1

blank page

Part 4, Page: 2

Quantitative Results of the Senior and Mentor Surveys

Notes on Tables 4.1 to 4.13

The objective of Part 4 is to present a numerical analysis of the pre‐ and post‐capstone surveys of seniors and their faculty mentors, including explanations of the methodology, guidance on reading the tables included in the following section, and highlights of findings. Parts 5 and 6 are companion sections giving results of a textual analysis of the open‐ended comments on these same surveys.

These notes are based on our database of individual capstones from the years 2009/10 and 2010/11, which includes, if all data is available for an individual student/capstone – selected student bio‐demographic data (gender, race, majors, GPA data, etc.), the student’s pre‐ and post‐capstone surveys, the paired pre‐capstone survey for the mentor (or, if not possible, another faculty member familiar with the student’s pre‐capstone academic performance), the mentor’s post‐capstone survey, and the matched data descriptive of the type of capstone course taken by the student from the departmental policies and capstone type surveys. Altogether the database has the records for 2,843 distinct capstones, each with 636 data fields.

Primary statistical analysis has been done using SPSS V18. Unless otherwise noted, statistical significance of differences has been determined using two‐tailed t‐tests, and will be only noted if at p<=.05. Levels in tables are noted by asterisks: * p<=0.05, ** p <=.01, *** p<=.001. To add a measure of practical significance, the tables of pre/post capstone differences also include an “effect size” measure which is computed as the mean of the differences divided by their standard deviation, a computation that scales the magnitude of the change relative to a total variation measure, somewhat analogous to computing a percentage. An empirical comparison showed this computational method results in values close to the common method of comparing two means by dividing the mean difference by the pooled standard deviation. The simpler formula also avoids a lot of unwieldy computations given the number of subgroup breakdowns. Following Cohen (1988) a general interpretation of the standard effect size is that effects of about .2 might be considered “small”, .5 “medium”, and .8 “large”. Noting that our surveys are similar to the NSSE surveys, and actually used several of their questions (with permission), a more appropriate general characterization in our context, even with our modified effect size, however, might be .1 small, 0.3 medium, 0.5 large, as suggested by NSSE for their data. (c.f. http://nsse.iub.edu/pdf/effect_size_guide.pdf).

AVAILABLE DATA POOLS

Data subgroups. Because of missing surveys, the data is not complete for all capstones. Indeed, all four surveys (pre/post student and mentor) are available for only 536 capstones. Both the pre and post student surveys are available for 1,229 capstones, and both the pre and post mentor surveys are available for 931 capstones. Consequently, there are various subgroups of the capstone data available to be analyzed for difference purposes:

• all capstones, N=2843 • capstones with matched pre/post student surveys, N=1229 • capstones with matched pre/post mentor surveys, N=931

Part 4, Page: 3

• capstones with a pre survey for both student and mentor, N=1112 • capstones with a post survey for both student and mentor, N=968 • capstones with both a pre and post survey for student and mentor, N=536

Choosing a pool for any particular analysis is based on using the largest group for the most comprehensive result with the exception that matched pre/post data is preferred when pre/post differences are being investigated. Note that as a consequence of using difference pools, tables or individual results cited may indicate somewhat different means or Ns for the same data item.

Student subgroups. The pools above may also be broken down by student subgroups. The subgroups of most interest to our research questions and that most of the data tables include are: students overall and students from each school, each of three academic divisions (NS=natural sciences; SS= social sciences or SS+ = SS with business administration and teacher education included; and HUM=humanities, with languages, literature, and arts included), each of three college GPA groups (L = “<=2.99”, M = “3.0 to 3.49”, and H = “>=3.5”) , and each gender. Whenever the means for subgroups are compared for statistically significant differences, statistical significance is based on two‐tailed t‐tests with significant differences denoted by asterisks: * p<=.05, ** p<=.01, *** p<=.001. Microsoft Excel’s conditional color highlighting has been used in several tables to visually differentiate low to high values for the convenience of the reader and has no other intended significance.

Also note that in the tables the Ns may vary for individual data fields because of missing values. For instance, because questions may have gone unanswered or “not applicable” was selected.

NON‐RESPONSE BIAS CONSIDERATIONS

Our methodology was to attempt to obtain complete survey data for all capstones completed during the years 2009/10 and 2010/11. Non‐response bias is a potential concern since for 22% of the capstones no student surveys were obtained and both the pre‐ and post‐survey were completed for a minority, 43%, of the capstones.

Appendix 4.1 reports on an investigation of potential non‐response biases done using the data from year 1. As discussed there, citing the statistically significant differences, p<=.05, two‐tailed, the students who completed both pre‐ and post‐surveys, on average, received a higher grade on the capstone, had a higher college GPA both before and after the capstone, had a somewhat higher expected family contribution (EFC) for college (indicating higher average family incomes), had a higher average ACT (including converted SATs), a higher average high school percentile, had a higher percentage of females ( 70% vs. 51%), a higher average educational level for mothers, and, perhaps related to the female percentage, participated in fewer intercollegiate athletic teams during their senior year.

In short, higher achieving students, higher socio‐economic‐status students, and females tended to respond in higher percentages, a result shared with most student surveys. This, of course, limits our ability to generalize overall means and percentages to all seniors without weighting the results based on sample imbalances. However, our findings largely take these differences into account by considering separately in the tables the student subgroups based on school,

Part 4, Page: 4

GPA level and gender. We have excluded separate consideration in the tables of socio‐economic subgroups based on an analysis that SES has little impact on capstone outcomes (see Appendix 4.2). Finally, our results based on generally linear modeling (GLM) are after controlling for school, GPA, and gender.

RESULTS HIGHLIGHTS ‐ TABLES 4.1 TO 4.13

This section discusses the results by looking sequentially at each of the Tables 4.1 to 4.13, which the reader is encourage to consult while reading this analysis.

TABLE 4.1: DATA DIRECTORY AND OVERALL MEANS BY STUDENT SUBGROUP

This table is based on all capstones. It functions, at the basic level, as a reference directory to the data fields in the capstone database. It also serves a guide to all six surveys in the study, and a reference for the mean values for the pools of student groups of most interest to our research questions – all students and students by gender, academic major, GPA level, and school.

Included for each field are the SPSS Name, a descriptive text, and any special notes. For survey questions, the question text and response options are reproduced, along with the range of the response scale. For example “SA‐SD” is a 5 point scale from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree.

In addition to the original items on the surveys, the database includes the computed differences in the responses for matching pre and post values for fields and scales. In the table, these have an SPSS name that starts with a “D” followed by the field or scale name. Thus DStu1 is computed for each capstone as the difference PostStu1 minus PreStu1 for capstones for which both a pre‐ and post‐student survey are available. The means for these difference values are also included in the table, and, being based only on paired pre/post values, are the purest measures of change during the capstone. Appendix 4.12 notes some highlights of the overall means.

Our main results are for pre/post differences in the scales derived from factor analysis and reported in other Tables, but it is helpful to first consider means of the individual survey items and the most inclusive look at the overall pool of respondents, as shown in Table 4.1.

Please refer to Table 4.1 for the remainder of this section. Some specific items of interest are:

Student and faculty bio‐demographic data.

• Capstone credit hours. Capstone semester credit hours were predominantly equivalent to two 4‐ credit regular courses at Red, and one 4‐credit course at both White and Yellow. Tan, where a 3‐credit course is standard, had a wider range of capstone credit hours among those in the database, with a 3‐credit capstone most common, but many that combined extra components for a 4 or 6 credit package, and about 20% 12 credits.

• Capstone grades. Overall, capstone grading averaged about the same as for regular courses, but with significant variation by school and division. The average capstone grade was 3.25 (B+) which is about the same as the average pre‐capstone college GPA (3.22). Using the pre‐capstone college GPA as a predictor, when compared to pre‐capstone college GPA, Red tended to grade the capstone lower, Tan higher, and Yellow and White about the same. Female students had a higher average capstone grade than

Part 4, Page: 5

males, 3.33 versus 3.12, but in line with pre‐capstone GPAs of 3.31 and 3.08, respectively. NS students had the highest average capstone grade, 3.34 and the biggest jump from the pre‐capstone GPA, 3.24. Similarly, students in the lower GPA range scored a lower average capstone grade than students in the highest GPA range, but again, these values are about the same as their GPA averages pre‐ and after the post‐capstone.

Means Group CapGrade PreCapColGPA Diff. ALL ALL 3.25 3.22 0.03 BY SCHOOL R 3.05 3.19 ‐0.14 T 3.61 3.36 0.25 W 3.15 3.16 ‐0.01 Y 3.22 3.16 0.06 BY DIVISION NS 3.34 3.24 0.10 SS+ 3.20 3.19 0.01 HUM 3.22 3.24 ‐0.02 BY GPA GROUP Low 2.66 2.65 0.02 Mid 3.26 3.22 0.04 High 3.66 3.62 0.04 BY GENDER M 3.12 3.08 0.04

F 3.33 3.31 0.03

[We have speculated that the standard research paradigm fits the natural sciences marginally better than other disciplines. Is this evidence of that? Does it matter that Red appears to have grading standards more rigorous than for a regular course, and Tan less rigorous?]

• Family SES. The table includes several socio‐economic‐status (SES) variables obtained from financial assistance FAFSA filings. These include measures of expected family contribution, need, grant aid, loan aid, and parental education levels. Although some differences by school and student subgroup were observed among these variables, an investigation of the effects of SES on capstone outcomes indicated that these differences are not consequential to capstone success (see Appendix 4.2).

Student pre‐capstone survey data.

Below we consider the matched pre/post questions, where they are discussed in the context of pre/post changes and using the scales resulting from our factor analysis.

• Student expectations (PreStu66 – PreStu77). Students have high expectations for the capstone experience. Students tend to strongly agree that their capstone will be intellectually challenging, that they will be comfortable working with their mentor, that they will improve their knowledge of their disciplinary and critical thinking skills, and increase their understanding of their own abilities and interests. They are less likely to agree that the capstone will clarify career or graduate school goals, a result consistent with a hypothesis that most students feel they have made their key career or graduate school decisions prior to the start of the capstone.

Part 4, Page: 6

• Challenge vs. stress (PreStu66 and PreStu77). In an interesting distinction, higher GPA students are more likely to agree their capstone will be intellectually challenging (PreStu66), while lower GPA students are more likely to think their capstone will be very stressful (PreStu77). The psychology of this distinction may involve motivational issues relating to success orientation versus failure‐avoidance. We speculate higher ability students are more likely to respond to the intellectual challenge as an opportunity to prove themselves, while others are more concerned about being able to meet the challenge, which they believe will be stressful. The follow‐up story is that the expectations were, as far as the data shows, not necessarily accurate. On the post‐capstone survey, the differences in means by GPA group for “My capstone was more stressful than my regular coursework” (PostStu98) were not statistically significant, although the mean for the lower GPA group was somewhat higher. Without regard to GPA, the pre expectation of stress with the post reporting of stress had an overall correlation of .281.

• Student time (PreStu78 and PostStu53). Student time‐on‐task is greater for capstones. As an overall average, students expected to spend 14.16 hours per week on their capstone, a number remarkably close to the 14.11 hours per week students actually reported on the post‐capstone survey. If reasonably accurate, 14.11 hours per week on their capstone alone is an indication of effort well beyond that of a regular course, considering that national senior data indicates students report working about 10‐11 hours per week on all their courses, and the capstone is generally taken simultaneously with other courses. This data suggests that part of the success of a capstone experience is that the capstone can be engaging enough to simply increase students’ time‐on‐task. The correlation of student time on the capstone and the rating of the capstone’s contribution to development and the rating of a successful capstone were .201 and .214, respectively. These are significant correlations, but not as high as some other aspects of the capstone experience (see discussion below).

The averages vary by school and division with higher average hours for Red (15.7) and Yellow (14.7), followed by White (12.7) and Tan (11.9). NS (15.3) has a higher average than SS+ (13.7) or HUM (13.2).

Post‐capstone survey data.

• Preparation – coursework (PostStu34, PostStu37). Not surprisingly, students consider courses in the major or minor, including a junior or senior seminar, as the most important preparation, m=3.46 on a 4‐point scale. Surprisingly, however, courses outside the major, which includes general education courses, are rated markedly lower, m=2.10, just above volunteer experiences, m=2.06, and much lower than general non‐academic interests/experiences, m=2.74. This might be explainable by students perceiving this question to be only about content preparation and ignoring skill development. Another possibility is that most capstones are done within the major and are typically focused on a narrowly‐defined topic, making the relevance of coursework within the major appear to be higher than for non‐major coursework. If so, it is consistent with a finding that capstones generally do not integrate knowledge from

Part 4, Page: 7

curricular areas outside the major. Another possibility is that students have not had sufficient time to reflect on what went into their capstone and which parts of their undergraduate experience contributed directly or indirectly to their preparation (see discussion of “multiple perspectives” below).

Students in the Natural Sciences were the least likely to find courses outside the major/minor useful (1.95) and the most likely to find courses in the major/minor to be useful (3.52).

• Preparation – prior research (PostStu35‐36). The schools provide extensive pre‐capstone research opportunities. 78% of respondents indicated they had experienced a course‐embedded research project prior to their capstone (with almost equal participation across the three academic divisions), 41% had completed an independent study course/project and 24% had completed a summer research project. Students in the Natural Sciences were most likely to have had a summer research experience of greater than four weeks and to have been a research assistant during the academic year. Students in the Humanities were the least likely to have had these experiences.

• Topic selection (PostStu211‐215). On five point scales, students seem to be relatively happy with the process for topic selection (m=4.05), and with the resulting topic, rating their enthusiasm for the topic at the beginning of the capstone with a mean of 4.21. Enthusiasm drops modestly, however, by the end of the capstone to a mean of 4.09.

Although not rising to the level of statistical significance, it is worth pointing out that students in the Natural Sciences gave lower values for the origin of the their topic (3.37) and the extent to which they participating in its development (4.11) than students in the Social Sciences (4.05 and 4.26 respectively) and the Humanities (4.21 and 4.42). However, students in the Natural Sciences expressed the greatest satisfaction with the process uses to select the topic (4.16, with 4.0 for the Social Sciences and 4.05 for the Humanities). We know from the focus groups that Natural Science students are more likely to work in the area of their mentor’s research than students outside the Natural Sciences, and that Natural Science students expressed some relief at having the topic selection somewhat narrowed for them. By contrast, students outside the sciences, particularly in the Humanities, mentioned in the focus groups that topic selection could be a real challenge. We might speculate that students in the Natural Sciences take less responsibility for (show less independence) in topic selection than non‐Natural Science students.

• Student view of mentors (PostStu80‐83; PostStu216‐225). Again, on a five point scale, the expanded list of items about the student/mentor relationship showed generally high marks for the mentor’s rapport with the student, including being interested in the project (m=4.44), encouraging the student’s independence (m=4.49), and being comfortable to work with (m=4.47). In what seems to be an inconsistency, the mean for “my mentor effectively guided me through the capstone”, m=4.19, was lower than all the related specific guidance items, such as sufficient feedback (m=4.29) and useful

Part 4, Page: 8

feedback (m=4.39). Perhaps there is some important aspect of mentoring that was missed in our survey that contributes to this discrepancy. Nonetheless, the overall results seem to indicate students perceive a high level of mentoring ability on the part of faculty. School Red had the highest value for almost all items in this group, suggesting that there is an aspect of mentoring there that is especially effective.

• Mentors’ self‐ratings (PostFac202‐215). Similarly, mentors rate their own performance highly. They thought they gave the student sufficient access (m=4.64) and useful advice (m=4.55), but were less confident that they provided helpful subject matter expertise (m=4.30) or effectively guided the student through the capstone (m=4.28). Although the issue of faculty workload for the capstones arose in several focus groups, it was mentioned rarely in the mentor survey comments, which suggests that mentors feel they are, in general, performing well despite workload concerns. Much of the workload concern may relate to equitable treatment across departments and as compared to regular courses.

• Student time (PostStu52‐53). Students report an average of 2.86 hours per week interacting with their mentor in individual or group meetings, and working an average of 14.1 hours per week on all aspects of the capstone. Students in the Natural Sciences report working meeting for an hour more per week than students in the Social Sciences and Humanities. Lower GPA students report meeting with the mentor for an hour more per week than students in the medium and higher GPA ranges, but spending approximately the same total amount of time per week as students in the other GPA ranges.

Department Capstone Policies and Administration survey and Capstone Type survey.

In contrast to the above data items completed by the student or mentor, these data fields come from surveys completed by academic departments, typically by the department chair, and concern departmental policies and descriptive information about capstone courses offered by the department. This data has been added to student capstone records based on matching the department and course. A technical problem made it impossible to match records for school White.

The results of these surveys at the department and course level are discussed elsewhere (see Part 2). The means in this section, being at the student level, are weighted by the number of actual student capstones they affected.

• Completion and Outcomes. Based on the departmental policies surveys, as weighted by the proportion of capstone surveys from each department in the database, we have estimates that about:

o 6% of capstones started are not completed successfully o 1% of majors fail to graduate because of failure to complete the capstone o 19% of majors present their capstone results at a professional or undergraduate

conference o 9% of majors, where this is applicable, exhibit/perform/present their capstone

project in a professional venue outside of the college

Part 4, Page: 9

o 4% publish their work in a professional journal

• Preparatory course features. For capstones where the department indicated there was a preparatory course, the means shown in the table below indicate the extent various items were covered (on a 4‐point scale from “not at all” to “a great extent”):

Please describe to what extent the following items are covered in this preparatory course: Refining discipline‐specific communication skills 3.54 Learning methods useful for the senior capstone 3.51 Determining the topic for the senior capstone 3.31 Creating a senior capstone proposal 3.27 Starting work on the senior capstone 2.70 Assigning students to senior capstone advisors 2.53 Preparation for a comprehensive exam 1.15

Thus three frequently occurring features of a capstone‐specific preparatory course are learning to write or communicate in the style of the discipline, learning capstone‐specific research/inquiry methods, and deriving a capstone topic and developing a proposal. In retrospect, there should have been questions about capstone project management, as student comments reveal this as an area where they encounter difficulty (and growth) during the capstone.

Capstone features. On a 4‐point scale from “not important” to “essential” for our questions about the importance of various capstone components the means for the capstones in the database were:

Please indicate the degree of importance each of the following has as part of capstones of this type: Production of a written thesis or substantial paper 3.95 A literature search and review 3.82 An oral examination of the project 3.61 An oral presentation of project progress or results 3.49 A reflective analysis concerning the project (e.g., its value, lessons learned, contribution to the discipline or to self‐knowledge, etc.) 3.18 Laboratory experimentation 2.77 Generation of data through direct measurement (e.g. through experiments, observation, questionnaires, interviews, etc.) 2.64 Use of other library services (e.g. library instruction, reference librarian assistance, special collections) 2.52 Creation of or contribution to an artistic performance or product (music, art, theater, literary work ...) 2.43 Statistical analysis of data 2.42 Collaboration with other students 2.38

Part 4, Page: 10

Clinical or practicum experiences 2.15 A poster presentation of project results 2.11 Civic engagement or service learning experiences 1.91 Internship experiences 1.87 Field study (e.g. research or projects carried out on location) 1.82 Questionnaire construction and analysis 1.59 A written examination 1.56

The most universal features of capstones that emerged were a literature search/analysis and communicated products in the form of a written thesis or substantial paper and an oral presentation or defense. Some sort of reflection on the meaning of the project seems to also be common. Many of the other features, such as statistical work, have lower overall means because they do not apply equally in all disciplines. This variation is shown in the means by division, as included in the table.

• Capstone evaluation. In accordance with individual school policies, most grading for capstones in our database was done with traditional letter grades alone (59%) or with an honors option (+4%). A pass/fail or pass/fail/honors grading system was used for 16% of the capstones and an “honors/ good/ satisfactory /no credit” system for 25%. 25% of grades were assigned by the mentor alone, but for 56% a second reader was also used. For 14%, the department assigned the grade. Schools using a second reader note its value in maintaining uniformity of standards, as a backup for the mentor, and as a training experience for new faculty.

TABLES 4.2 AND 4.3: SUMMARY LIST OF CAPSTONE SURVEY SCALES AND CAPSTONE SURVEY SCALES

Given the large number of items in the surveys, factor analysis has been done to reduce the data to a more intelligible set of scales that capture the main underlying concepts in the surveys and help smooth out the data, reducing some of the “noise” in the responses. Factor analysis of the pre‐ and post‐surveys of students and mentors, done separately for each survey, resulted in various scales that combine highly correlated items. These are listed with a brief description in the “Summary List of Capstone Survey Scales”, Table 4.2. The statistical details of the scales that validates their use are given in the “Capstone Survey Scales…” document (Table 4.3). These include the scale reliability alpha, a list of the individual items included in each scale, and the correlation or factor loading value of each component item with its corresponding scale. Scale values are computed as the averages of the component items.

Technical details of the factorizations are given in Appendix 4.3. The scales are themselves a valuable outcome of the study that may be useful to others doing subsequent research or for developing assessment instruments. The inter‐correlations of the scales are given in Tables 4.4 to 4.9 and the scale means are listed in the “Scale and Item Means…” table described directly below, as well as the Data Directory, Table 4.1.

Most of the scales are from items repeated in both the pre‐ and post‐capstone surveys. Discussion of those scales and their changes is found below in the notes on Table 4.10.

Part 4, Page: 11

The only scale developed from just pre‐capstone items, ExpectGoodCapstone, is a combination of feeling the capstone will help the student develop academic skills, prepare for graduate school or a job, understand their own interests and skills better, and be engaged and challenged by their project. It represents a positive attitude toward the capstone at the beginning. It turns out to be an important scale in having a high correlation with post‐capstone ratings of success and development.

Scales from post‐capstone items only are retrospective reports concerning preparation for the capstone, the relationship with the mentor, the engagement of the student with the capstone, and the student’s ratings of the capstone as personally successful and its contribution to development. The preparation questions factored into three scales: preparation in the discipline through coursework (PrepDisc); preparation through volunteer, study abroad, non‐academic interests, internships, or courses outside the major (PrepBreadth); and preparation in quantitative methods (PrepQuant). The relationship with the mentor scale (MentorRel) is a composite of 14 separate items with a very high reliability of .959. This reliability indicates the number of items could be reduced while still providing an accurate measure of this construct.

Two special outcomes scales. Of special note are the “PostCapContDev” (post‐capstone survey contribution to development) and “PostCapSuccessful” (post‐capstone survey successful experience) scales, which capture two aspects of how students perceive a successful capstone. “CapContDev” measures a student’s perception that the capstone contributed to their development of academic and life‐long learning skills, such as critical thinking, writing, data interpretation, research skills, managing a large project, having confidence in one’s abilities, and learning on one’s own. “CapSuccessful” is related, but, as a separate factor, is distinct. It represents a broader perception of the capstone as a contributor to personal development, including intellectual growth, self‐understanding, and realization of personal potential post‐graduation. It includes a perception that the capstone contributed positively to: intellectual growth and interest in ideas; personal growth, attitudes and values; understanding of skills, abilities, and interests; graduate school or career preparation (including clarification of objectives); and a better understanding of their discipline and creating new knowledge in their discipline. As our two main measures of success, many of our results relate to discovering what leads to the highest or lowest values on these two scales.

TABLES 4.4 TO 4.8: INTER‐CORRELATIONS OF VARIOUS SCALES

Table 4.4 gives the inter‐correlations of the scales derived from the pre‐student survey. The other tables 4.5‐4.8 give the inter‐correlations for scales on the post‐student survey, pre‐ to post‐student surveys, pre‐ to post‐faculty surveys, and post‐student to post‐faculty surveys. Excel’s conditional highlighting has been used to color code low to high values with graduated colors going from yellow to green, or light to dark when printed in gray scales. For example, Table 4.4 shows that expecting to have a good capstone experience is more highly correlated with prior year academic performance (PreExhibitScholarlySkills = 0.37, PreHighOrderCogn = 0.34, PreMultPerspectives2 = 0.33 and PreResearchOrient = 0.31) than with ability self‐ratings (PreRatingAcadAbil = 0.13, PreRatingLeadCollabSkills = 0.15) and PreRatingIndepVoice = 0.16. The other tables serve as a reference for similar considerations. Of particular interest might be

Part 4, Page: 12

the correlations with ratings of a successful capstone and the capstone’s contribution to development shown in Tables 4.5 and 4.6.

In Table 4.5, PostCapSuccessful correlates most highly with PostCapContDev = .699, PostCapMoreEngaging = .580, PostExhibScholarlySkills = .509 and PostProjMgt = .421. Somewhat surprising is the relatively low correlation with PostRatingStriver at .270, PostRatingIndepVoice at.180, and with PostRatingAcadAbil at .164.

PostCapContDev correlates most highly with PostCapSuccessful = .699, PostxhibScholarlySkills = .599, PostHighOrderCogn = .509, PostCapMoreEngaging = .474, and PostPreDisc = .426. Again, PostRatingIndepVoice = .230 and PostRatingStriver = .289 are relatively low correlates.

However, in Table 4.6, which looks at scale inter‐correlations from pre‐ to post‐students surveys, the highest correlates with PostCapContDev are PreExpectGoodCapstone = .48, PreHighOrderCogn = .29, PreExhibScholarlySkills = .28, and PreRatingStriver = .27. The scale with the second lowest correlation with PostCapContDev is PreRatingIndepVoice = .15. The results are similar for PostCapSuccessful, with PostProjMgt appearing at .29.

In Table 4.7, the inter‐correlations of the four student performance rating scales (CommunSkills, EffProjectMgt, IntelEngagement, and CrthinkSkills) are high for each of the pre (0.67 ‐ 0.82) and post (0.71 ‐ 0.87) sets of scales. It is not clear if these areas are really that inter‐related or if faculty unable to make the distinctions we would anticipate. The correlations of StudentTopicMotiv, the mentor's rating of their instruction (MentorInstruction) and rapport with the student (MentorRapport) are positively correlated with the four student performance scales. It is worth noting that MentorRapport is more highly correlated with the student performance scales (.46 to .58) than MentorInstruction (.23 to .36).

TABLE 4.9: FACULTY SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENTS TO FACULTY SCALES INTER‐CORRELATIONS

Table 4.9 correlates a series of summative questions on the post capstone mentor survey in which the mentor rates the student’s performance on a single attribute with the various mentor survey scale items. For instance, the correlation of the scale item “PostCommunSkills”, which is based on a series of questions, with the single summative question to rate “communication” was .680. Overall, the high correlations suggest that future surveys, such as for ongoing assessment, might use the summative items without too much loss of reliability.

TABLES 4.10 TO 4.12: RESULTS OF PRE/POST CHANGE

Because we are interested in changes during the capstone and this is best done with a repeated measures design, the data in Table 4.10 is based on only the 1,229 capstone records with a matched pre‐ and post‐capstone student survey. The faculty survey data is based on this same subset of capstones.

The “Pre” and “Post” columns give the means for all available pre‐ and post‐capstone surveys (1229 for students, pre and post, and 762 pre and 729 post for faculty. The “D” column indicates the mean of the difference scores for paired pre/post responses only (1229 for students and 526 for faculty). Because of rounding and because some students or faculty responding to a particular item on only one of the pre or post surveys and lack a “D” value, the

Part 4, Page: 13

“D” mean does not always equal the Post mean minus the Pre mean. The “eff” column is an effect size computed as the mean of the difference values divided by their standard deviation.

Tables 4.11 and 4.12 are reduced views of the data showing only statistically significant changes with up or down arrows. Table 4.11 includes the scales and component questions, and Table 4.12, the most concise summary of the observed changes, indicates the significant changes in the scales only. The small numeral next to the arrows indicates the value of the effect size (“eff” in Table 4.10) rounded to the closest 10th.

Although the tables are very helpful in separating out means by school, division, GPA level and gender, it isn’t clear how these interact. In hopes of teasing this out, references and plots are included below to a series of SPSS GLM models for the pre/post difference scores that included school, academic division, pre‐capstone GPA (as a continuous covariate), and the school*division interaction. These generally show that, after controlling for the pre‐capstone GPA, there are significant interactions of school and division for many of the scales, particularly for those with larger effect sizes. The plots below help elucidate these interactions by showing the estimated marginal means for the predicted difference scores by school and division, with the GPA set at an overall mean value of 3.32. For completeness, plots have been included even in the cases where school and/or division did not show differences of statistical significance. The statistically significant effects are noted in the text. Please note the scale when reviewing the charts, as the scale may exaggerate small differences. The connecting lines have no significance other than to visually connect the points for the same academic divisions.

In summary, the statistically significant changes observed for the scales were:

o No change: Civic orientation, status career orientation, satisfaction with instruction. o Scale Declines: Higher order cognition, satisfaction with support services, use of

multiple perspectives. o Scale Increases: All four faculty scales (communication skills, effective project

management, intellectual engagement, and critical thinking skills), and the remaining eight student scales (exhibit scholarly skills, need for cognition lite, project management, academic ability, collaborative skills, independent voice, strive to achieve, and research orientation).

Part 4, Page: 14

Remarks:

Student scales with no change:

• Civic Orientation. An increase in an orientation toward civic concerns (volunteer, helping others, community leadership, influencing social values, …) is a generally espoused goal of a liberal education, but was seldom mentioned in the focus groups or comments as an explicit goal of the capstone experience. School Tan incorporates a reflective component that asks the student to consider the value of the experience for society, but no significant change was observed for Tan or any other school. The absence of a change largely confirms expectations. As the lone exception among our student subgroups, civic orientation went up for the high GPA group. The GLM showed significant effects for GPA and school.

• Status Career Orientation. Although this scale did not change significantly overall, the sub‐item of “becoming accomplished in my field of expertise” as a life goal declined overall for most student categories and would appear to be the main contributor to the scale decline. To the extent that this scale reflects a desire for making more money and prestige, this is not an unfavorable result, but a decline in a goal of becoming accomplished in their field is, on the surface, an unexpected negative result worth exploring. Perhaps related to this is an unexpected small decline in the pre to post percentage of students, using matched data, that intend to pursue a doctorate, from 23% to 22%. This was not a statistically significant decline, but an increase was anticipated and did occur for master’s degrees (+1%) and law degrees (+2%). The following table shows the shifts among degree categories for seniors where both the pre and post responses were available. It shows considerable movement between categories: moving to a doctorate were 7% of those formerly intending to stay at the bachelor’s level, and 8% of those intending a masters. Moving the other direction, 4% of

Part 4, Page: 15

those intending a doctorate moved to the bachelor’s category and 12% to the master’s level.

Pre vs. Post: Advanced Degrees Post: What is the highest academic degree

you intend to earn in your lifetime?

Total 1

Bachelor's2

Master's3 Law (JD)

4 Doctorate

Pre: What is the highest academic degree you intend to earn in your lifetime?

1 Bachelor's 67 35 2 8 1122 Master's 48 476 3 46 5733 Law (JD) 1 8 49 3 614 Doctorate 16 47 5 329 397

Total 132 566 59 386 1143

The table is evidence that the capstone experience confirms doctoral degree interest for some while reversing it for others, with little overall net change. In that case, the capstone may serve a useful function in identifying through more informed self‐appraisal the students who have the interest and abilities for doctoral studies. (Medical schools encourage some research experience or doctor shadowing for the same purpose.) The GLM showed a significant GPA effect, and suggests higher increases for higher GPA students.

Part 4, Page: 16

• Satisfaction with instruction. Satisfaction with instruction was high before and after the capstone, and not seeing a significant increase simply corresponds with continued high ratings. The GLM model showed no significant effects.

Student scales declining:

• Higher order cognition (eff=‐.07). This scale is appropriated from NSSE (by permission) and also emerged during our factor analysis. While the decline is quite modest, it might have been expected that the use of higher order cognition would instead go up significantly during the capstone. Adding to this incongruity, it is somewhat puzzling that the higher order cognition scale would decline while the related need for cognition scale would increase; although they are different, the two scales might be expected to move in sync. The former is a comparison of practice of cognition skills prior to and during the capstone, while the latter is a measure of enjoyment of cognition effort during the capstone. Looking at the subcomponents, the decline came from “analyzing…ideas” and, most significantly, a decline in “applying theories or concepts to practical problems or in new situations” (eff=‐.20), while “synthesizing and organizing ideas, information, or experiences…” actually went up overall. Certainly the increase for “synthesizing…” seems valid, and is supported by faculty reports, where an item on “synthesizes information” had one of the largest positive effect sizes. We have no clear explanation for the decline in “applying theories or concepts to practical problems….”. Speculatively, this result would seem to have some face validity for capstones if students don’t see their capstone as solving a “practical problem” or the skills developed as applicable to practical problems. While research generally and many capstones require attention to both the practical and theoretical aspects of a discipline, most capstone projects may be seen as predominantly theoretical. If this is the case, the

Part 4, Page: 17

decline in this scale is a misleading result from a nuance in the NSSE wording that doesn’t apply well to capstones. Any follow‐up projects might consider looking more closely at this. As with other aspects of the capstone, it may take time for the student to see some of the more general benefits of the capstone. The GLM model a significant school*division effect.

• Multiple Perspectives (eff=‐.30). The decline in multiple perspectives contrasts with some popular perceptions of the capstone as a culminating experience integrating the 4‐year college experience. In practice, it is more an in‐depth experience in the discipline that integrates general education skills such as writing and critical thinking, but not necessarily ideas or concepts from other areas, and does not, as a general rule, give emphasis to diverse perspectives based on race, religion, gender, or political beliefs. A decline in “tried to better understand someone else’s views….” also contributes to the decline in this scale and gives some pause, as this would seem to be a goal of the literature review of any inquiry, and critical thinking in general. However, it may be that the question was interpreted to mean taking someone else’s personal views into account, as opposed to consideration of different scholarly positions on a subject. A decline occurs across all student subgroups (by school, major, GPA, and gender), but is greatest for natural science majors and low GPA students. A GLM model showed both the school and division with significant effects after controlling for GPA, with the estimated marginal means for the pre/post difference scores, broken down by school, shown in a plot below. The order of least decline, from humanities to social sciences to natural sciences, is possibly related to how mathematical/technical each disciplinary area is, the more objective disciplines perhaps placing less emphasis on consideration of various personal points of view on a topic. The GLM model showed significant effects by both school and division.

Part 4, Page: 18

• Satisfaction with support services (eff=‐.10). This scale has subcomponents for rating of computer, library and facilities/equipment services. The small decline is possibly a result of increased demand for these services resulting from capstones. Being highly individualized, capstone projects may require specialized equipment or computer software, reserved workspace (including laboratory or library space), special library resources, etc. The GLM model showed a significant GPA effect with higher GPA students showing more satisfaction.

Part 4, Page: 19

Student scales that increased:

• Exhibiting Scholarly Skills (eff=+.42) and Research Orientation (eff=+.29). The combined increase in these scales is evidence the capstone is an effective educational practice. Students report that they performed at a higher level on many critical thinking, research and communication skills during the capstone than in prior regular courses, and that, on average, they gained in enjoyment of doing research.

These scales increased overall and for all student subgroups (see the table values and the plot below). Moreover there was a statistically significant increase in the mean response for each individual question in both scales. For individual items, the only significant decline observed was for humanities majors and quantitative reasoning, a result that adds credibility to the validity of student responses. The GLM for scholarly skills showed no statistically significant effects p<=.05. School and division, which appear significant in the plot, were close to the .1 level. The GLM for research orientation showed division is significant, and suggests the greatest gains for research interest were in the social sciences.

Part 4, Page: 20

• Rating of Academic Ability (eff=+.27). Students’ ratings of their abilities in writing, creative and critical thinking, and academic ability in general went up pre‐ to post‐capstone, as did their intellectual self‐confidence. An increase in the mean was observed for every school and student type. Looking at the component items for this scale in the table, it seems that the strongest increases may be for the highest GPA group (H), and for females, but this impression for females was contraindicated by a GLM that added gender and gender*division to the model that showed no significant effect from gender. The original GLM without gender showed no significant effects.

Part 4, Page: 21

• Project Management (eff=+.17). In the open ended questions, an increase in project management skills was among the most frequently cited benefits of the capstone, and this is corroborated by the increase in this scale. A significant increase was observed for all divisions, GPA levels and both genders. By school, however, significant increases were found only for Red and Yellow. This corresponds to those schools having more intense capstones in terms of credit hours and duration, which is always the full senior year for Red. It is likely that achieving significant development of project management skills during the capstone is enhanced by capstone programs that emphasize the scale, challenge, and duration of the projects as well as mentoring styles that foster student independence. The GLM showed GPA as significant p<=.05, and, notably, that students with lower GPAs reported higher project management gains.

• Need for Cognition Lite (eff=+.11). The surveys used five of the 18 items from the Need for Cognition scale as an abbreviated version to measure enjoyment of effortful cognitive activities. Studies indicate the full need for cognition scale is a relatively stable dispositional construct. The observed increase in this scale over a brief time period, though a small effect, along with the increase in an enjoyment in conducting research noted above, is evidence that capstones contribute to a precursor condition for life‐long learning. The increase was concentrated in schools Red and Yellow, but occurred across all GPA levels at all schools. The GLM showed school*division as significant.

Part 4, Page: 22

• Rating of Leadership/Collaboration Skills (eff=+.17). This scale incorporates public speaking ability, leadership ability, and social self‐confidence. Although the overall result was an increase in each component item, the most uniform increase across student types was for public speaking ability. A key component of most of the capstones in the study has been a public presentation. The GLM showed GPA as significant.

Part 4, Page: 23

• Rating of Independent Voice (eff=+.07). The increase in this scale, which comes primarily from an increase in self‐understanding, is reinforced by many student comments relating to developing an understanding of interests and abilities. Indeed, the small effect size is surprising given the emphasis this received in student comments. The GLM showed no significant differences by subgroups, although GPA was significant with a somewhat less stringent standard of p<=.1.

Part 4, Page: 24

• Rating of Striver (eff=+.07). The increase in this scale evidences an increased self‐rating of a drive to achieve and of persistence, and is presumably related to experiencing the challenge of a sustained and difficult project, and related to such student comments as “I did it!”. The GLM showed no significant differences by subgroups.

Part 4, Page: 25

Faculty scales – all increased:

All four faculty scales increased: communication skills (eff=+.27), effective project management (eff=+.35), intellectual engagement (eff=+.34), and critical thinking skills (eff=+.42). These scales compare faculty perceptions of student work during the capstone to their academic work in regular coursework prior to the capstone. Our evidence is that these scales went up for all four schools and student groups by major, GPA level and gender. In summary, faculty mentors seem very pleased with the performance of students during the capstone and feel it compares favorably with their performance during a regular course on these measures. A closer look at student subgroups using GLM univariate models showed that for the last three faculty scales listed above there were significant effects from the school*division interaction. Plots of pre/post difference scores for faculty scales by school and division:

Part 4, Page: 26

Part 4, Page: 27

*****************************

TABLES 4.13: SUMMARY SHEET: MEANS OF SCALES AND SUMMATIVE ITEMS ONLY ON THE POST‐CAPSTONE SURVEYS

This table is a companion to Table 4.11 that summarizes the scales and items for which no pre/post change could be computed, since they were from questions asked only on the post‐capstone surveys.

****************************

Part 4, Page: 28

RESULTS ‐ USING THE SCALES TO INVESTIGATE KEY QUESTIONS

WHAT MAXIMIZES THE CAPSTONE’S CONTRIBUTION TO DEVELOPMENT?

A key question of interest is what aspects of the capstone are significant contributors to student academic development. To look at this a wide variety of variables were used in a series of regression models that resulted in the following list of survey items that had statistically significant coefficients in the model, p<.05. They are listed in descending importance based on the standardized Beta coefficients for the model.

Item Beta PreExpectGoodCapstone Student expects capstone experience to be helpful. .263 PostStu57 Making judgments about the value of information, arguments, or methods, such as examining how others gathered and interpreted data and assessing the soundness of their conclusions.

.220

PostMentorRel Helpful and comfortable relationship with the mentor. .211 PostPrepDisc Helpfulness as preparation for the capstone of areas that are grounded in the disciplinary major of the capstone.

.191

PreRatingStriver Self‐rating of drive to achieve and persistence. .113 PostStu214 When the project started, how enthusiastic were you about your capstone topic?

.082

PostPrepBreadth Helpfulness as preparation for the capstone of areas that add educational breadth.

.064

PreCivicOrient Orientation toward civic engagement .064 PostStu53 On average, how many hours per week did you spend working on ALL aspects of your capstone combined?

.059

The list suggests that significant correlates of a capstone that contributes to academic development involve the student’s positive attitudes and motivation (expecting a good capstone, being enthusiastic, and being motivated to achieve and persist), the student’s preparation both in terms of breadth in general education and in the discipline, a helpful and comfortable relationship with the mentor, a project that engages the student in critical thinking, and, finally, spending time‐on‐task. Not surprisingly, good preparation and good mentoring are associated with a contribution to development. What might be especially noted from this is the importance of structuring the methods of topic and mentor selection so that the student is interested in and has enthusiasm for the topic and is comfortable working with the mentor. Some student input in negotiating both would seem to be highly desirable. It might be noted that the survey timing was at the beginning of the capstone so the ExpectGoodCapstone rating was made after the topic and mentor were known (for most students) and would incorporate both those aspects. The use of higher order cognition in terms of making judgment about information, arguments and methods also points to the need for mentors to design or tailor the capstone project to elicit those critical thinking skills. Finally, higher time‐on‐task is related partially to interest and enthusiasm, as evidence by a correlation of 0.31 between PostStu53, hours per week, and PostCapMoreEngaging, with high expectations for student performance another dimension.

Part 4, Page: 29

WHAT CONTRIBUTES TO STUDENTS’ RATINGS OF THE CAPSTONE AS SUCCESSFUL?

Similarly to the contribution to development analysis, a series of regression models resulted in the following list of significant variables relating to higher ratings by the student of the capstone as a successful experience, in descending order of importance by t values:

Item Beta PostCapMoreEngaging Rating of the capstone as more or less intellectually engaging than a regular course.

.294

PostStu215 When the project ended, how enthusiastic were you about your capstone topic? .236 PreExpectGoodCapstone Student expects capstone experience to be helpful .181 PostPrepBreadth Helpfulness as preparation for the capstone of areas that add educational breadth.

.122

PreProjMgt Exhibiting good project management skills .113 PostStu213 How satisfied were you with the process used to select your capstone topic? .111 PostMentorRel Helpful and comfortable relationship with the mentor. .101 PostStu58 Applying theories or concepts to practical problems or in new situations .087 PostStudentTopicMotiv Mentor rating of students enthusiasm for the topic .068 PostStu54 Memorizing facts, ideas, or methods so you can repeat them in pretty much the same form

.049

PostStatusCareerOrient Desire to have a prestigious, high paying, and high achieving career. .049 PostStu57 Making judgments about the value of information, arguments, or methods, such as examining how others gathered and interpreted data and assessing the soundness of their conclusions

.048

As in the list for the contribution to development, broadly speaking, items in the list relate to pursuing a project of interest to the student and believing the student has the preparation and mentor support to succeed. Engagement with the capstone, preparation, the mentor relationship, and critical thinking emerge as significant aspects, although with somewhat different variables. Satisfaction with the process used to select the capstone topic is likely related to interest or enthusiasm for the topic. Having utilized good project management skills in courses prior to the capstone is a new area in this list and points to the value of incorporating in preparatory courses some projects that require aspects of organization, planning, and time management. (Student comments about the capstone show project management as a significant area of development.)

IS A UNIVERSAL CAPSTONE REQUIREMENT JUSTIFIED?

Our institutions have made the capstone requirement apply to all students, not just honors students or students in the natural sciences, where undergraduate research programs tend to concentrate. This decision appears to be justified by our data in Tables 4.10 to 4.13, in student and mentor comments, and in our alumni survey results. Although there are some notable differences, a review of Table 4.11, for instance, shows remarkable consistency of reports of capstone changes by both students and mentors across academic divisions, GPA levels and gender, and generally that significant gains from the capstone experience can be achieved by all types of students. Moreover, many of the areas of gains seem linked to the special characteristics of the capstones, as compared to a regular course, as an independent, large scale, significant research or creative project. Among the student scales, most showed no

Part 4, Page: 30

significant effects from academic division or GPA. The exceptions are GPA effects for StatusCareerOrient, RatingLeadCollabSkills, and ProjMgt. Lower GPA students appear to report higher gains in ProjMgt, reinforcing the value of capstones for this group. No student or faculty scales showed significant effects from division alone, but HighOrderCogn, NeedCognLite, EffProjectMgt, IntelEngagement, CrThinkSkills showed a significant effect from the school*division interaction. The interpretation of this is not crystal clear, but apparently institutional approaches to the capstone, which are largely driven at the departmental level, are different enough to result in varying results based on disciplines. Some further comparisons of capstone types by division and across schools might help clarify this.

Looking more closely at GPA differences, it appears from faculty reports that higher GPA students tend to perform better during the capstone, as shown by the correlations of the pre‐capstone GPA with the faculty measures:

Correlations with pre‐capstone GPA

PreCapColGPA College GPA ‐

Start of capstone year

PostCommunSkills Student exhibited good communication skills. 0.50 PostCrThinkSkills Student exhibited good critical thinking skills. 0.50 PostIntelEngagement Student exhibited good intellectual engagement behaviors. 0.49 PostEffProjectMgt Student exhibited good project management skills. 0.48

Consistent with these scale correlations, the capstone grade assigned by the faculty member had a similar correlation with the pre capstone GPA of 0.57.

That students who perform better academically prior to the capstone would also tend to perform better during the capstone is not surprising. The case for including lower GPA students in a capstone program, however, is that they are able to develop during the capstone on a par with other students. We have seen above that there are positive effect sizes for many of the developmental scales. That students at all GPA levels are achieving growth on a more or less equal basis is evidenced by the comparable effect sizes at various GPA levels in Table 4.11, and the low correlations of the pre‐capstone GPA with the pre/post difference scores for both the student and faculty scales:

Correlations with pre‐capstone GPA

PreCapColGPA College GPA ‐


DCivicOrient Chg: Orientation toward civic engagement. 0.08 DStatusCareerOrient Chg: Desire to have a prestigious, high paying, and high achieving career. 0.07 DSatisSuppSrv Chg: Satisfaction with academic support services (library, computer, facilities/equipment supporting their major). 0.07 DRatingLeadCollabSkills Chg: Student's self rating of his/her group collaboration skills. 0.05 DRatingIndepVoice Chg: Student's self rating of his/her understanding of themselves and others and ability to think on their own. 0.05 DRatingStriver Chg: Student's self rating of his/her drive to achieve and 0.04

Part 4, Page: 31

persistence. DResearchOrient Chg: Enjoyment of research. 0.03 DHighOrderCogn Chg: Use of higher order cognitive thinking skills (analyzing, synthesizing, judgments, applying theories). 0.02 DRatingAcadAbil Chg: Student's self rating of his/her academic ability. 0.02 DMultPerspectives Chg: Using behaviors that exhibit an interest in examining ideas from a multiplicity of perspectives. 0.02 DSatisInstr Chg: Satisfaction with instruction. 0.01 DNeedCognLite Chg: An abbreviated version of the Need for Cognition scale designed to measure interest in or enjoyment of higher order cognition. ‐0.01 DAdvDeg Chg: % planning advanced degree ‐0.01 DExhibScholarlySkills Chg: During the past academic year (pre) or during the capstone (post) the student exhibited scholarly skills. ‐0.04 DProjMgt Chg: Exhibiting good project management skills. ‐0.07

Statistically significant correlations have been bolded. Note the negative significant correlation with DProjMgt indicates the possibility that lower GPA students perform better in developing project management skills.

A caveat in regard to universality is that there were a number of faculty comments about the frustrations of mentoring a capstone for students that are unmotivated or have poor writing/communication skills, and including lower GPA students in a capstone requirement, to the extent lower GPAs are associated with lack of motivation or writing skill, may add to the faculty mentoring burden.

DOES STUDENT SOCIO‐ECONOMIC BACKGROUND EFFECT RESULTS?

No evidence emerged that the student ratings for the capstone as successful or its contribution to development were affected by socio‐economic background variables that included parental education levels or financial aid measures of need, grant aid, or loan aid. See Appendix 4.2.

DO MENTOR REPORTS OF STUDENT SUCCESS AGREE WITH STUDENT SELF‐ASSESSMENT?

Yes, positive correlations show they are generally consistent. See Appendix 4.4.

ARE THE CAPSTONE EXPERIENCES DIFFERENT FOR DOUBLE MAJORS THAN SINGLE MAJORS?

In our database of capstones almost 39% of the students were double majors. This group shows statistically significant higher means on multiple perspectives, self‐ratings of academic ability, orientation toward research, and use of high order cognition during the capstone. They were less likely to expect a good capstone or find the capstone more engaging than a regular course. They had a smaller decline in multiple perspectives and a smaller increase in reporting they exhibited good project management compared to single‐major students. See Appendix 4.9.

DOES THE CAPSTONE GRADE ASSIGNED BY THE FACULTY CORRELATE HIGHLY WITH STUDENTS’ SELF‐RATINGS OF A SUCCESSFUL CAPSTONE OR DEVELOPMENT FROM THE CAPSTONE?

Part 4, Page: 32

Not as highly as might be expected. After converting grades to a 4‐point scale, the correlation of grades assigned with student estimates of success and development were a fairly modest .23 and .15, respectively. See Appendix 4.10.

IS THERE EVIDENCE OF AN IMPACT FROM THE CAPSTONE’S EXPECTATION OF INDEPENDENCE OF THOUGHT AND ACTION ON THE PART OF THE STUDENT?

As shown below, encouraging student independence is a strongly positive aspect of capstones. Students’ perceptions of the mentor encouraging their independence are positively and significantly correlated with a large number of favorable scale outcomes, including pre/post changes in the development scales. The following table lists the correlations >=.2, in descending order. In particular independence is highly associated with a positive mentor relationship and ratings of the capstone’s success and contribution to development.

Correlations With PostStu216 My mentor encouraged my independence Corr. PostMentorRel Helpful and comfortable relationship with the mentor. .717** PostCapSuccessful Overall assessment of the capstone as a successful experience.

.376**

PostCapContDev Rating of the contribution of the capstone to the development of scholarly skills.

.368**

PostSatisInstr Satisfaction with instruction. .344** PostExhibScholarlySkills During the past academic year (pre) or during the capstone (post) the student exhibited scholarly skills.

.339**

PostHighOrderCogn Use of higher order cognitive thinking skills (analyzing, synthesizing, judgments, applying theories).

.256**

PostProjMgt Exhibiting good project management skills. .244** PostCapMoreEngaging Rating of the capstone as more or less intellectually engaging than a regular course.

.232**

DExhibScholarlySkills Chg: During the past academic year (pre) or during the capstone (post) the student exhibited scholarly skills.

.216**

Perhaps indicating a concern, correlations show little agreement between students and faculty on whether faculty members are actually encouraging independence. The correlation between the student rating of “My mentor encouraged my independence” and the faculty report that “I encouraged this student to work independently” was only .09 (see Appendix 4.10). This low level of agreement shows that faculty efforts to encourage independence are an area to address in any mentor training, since they are either ineffective or misunderstood by either mentors or students.

IS IT IMPORTANT TO HAVE STUDENTS PARTICIPATING IN DEVELOPING OR REFINING THEIR CAPSTONE TOPIC?

Yes, data supports this. The table below shows the positive and significant correlations between letting the student participate in developing the topic and many favorable scale outcomes. With particularly strong correlations are faculty reports of student enthusiasm for

Part 4, Page: 33

the topic and student performance during the capstone. Student scales of performance are also significantly correlated, but not as strongly.

Having noted above the association of student enthusiasm and time‐on‐task, we would conclude that having the student participate in topic development is also linked with more time‐on‐task. Intuitively, the more interested the student is in the topic, the more willing they are to devote time to its exploration. Other data suggests that it is fine for mentors to originate the topic for the capstone as long as the student is involved in negotiating its development and can take ownership of the project.

Correlations

PostFac38 To what extent did the

student participate in developing / refining his /her capstone

topic? PostStudentTopicMotiv Mentor rating of students enthusiasm for the topic 0.79 PostIntelEngagement Student exhibited good intellectual engagement behaviors. 0.52 PostCrThinkSkills Student exhibited good critical thinking skills. 0.46 PostEffProjectMgt Student exhibited good project management skills. 0.46 PostMentorRapport Mentor's self‐rating of good relationship with the student 0.39 PostCommunSkills Student exhibited good communication skills. 0.37 PostMentorInstruction Mentor's self‐rating of instructional own helpfulness 0.28 DIntelEngagement Chg: Student exhibited good intellectual engagement behaviors. 0.28 DEffProjectMgt Chg: Student exhibited good project management skills. 0.25 DCrThinkSkills Chg: Student exhibited good critical thinking skills. 0.25 PostRatingAcadAbil Student's self‐rating of his/her academic ability. 0.19 DCommunSkills Chg: Student exhibited good communication skills. 0.19 PostCapSuccessful Overall assessment of the capstone as a successful experience. 0.17 PostMultPerspectives Using behaviors showing interest in examining ideas from multiple perspectives 0.17 PostExhibScholarlySkills During the past academic year (pre) or during the capstone (post) the student exhibited scholarly skills. 0.17 PostCapMoreEngaging Rating of the capstone as more or less intellectually engaging than a regular course. 0.16 PostNeedCognLite An abbreviated version of the Need for Cognition scale designed to measure interest in or enjoyment of higher order cognition. 0.13 PostMentorRel Helpful and comfortable relationship with the mentor. 0.12 DMultPerspectives Chg: Using behaviors that exhibit an interest in examining ideas from a multiplicity of perspectives. 0.12 PostCapContDev Rating of the contribution of the capstone to the development of scholarly skills. 0.12 PostResearchOrient Student's self‐rating of his/her drive to achieve and 0.12

Part 4, Page: 34

persistence.

DHighOrderCogn Chg: Use of higher order cognitive thinking skills (analyzing, synthesizing, judgments, applying theories). 0.11 PostSatisInstr Satisfaction with instruction. 0.10 DExhibScholarlySkills Chg: During the past academic year (pre) or during the capstone (post) the student exhibited scholarly skills. 0.10 PostProjMgt Exhibiting good project management skills. 0.10

ARE CAPSTONES IN THE NATURAL SCIENCES MORE CLOSELY ALIGNED WITH FACULTY RESEARCH INTERESTS?

Some have speculated that for various reasons, including laboratory and equipment needs, students in the natural sciences need to align their capstone topics closer to the research interests of faculty, and are, consequently, less involved in defining the topic. A GLM paralleling those discussed above, shows no significant effects from the academic division or school separately, but shows a significant school*division interaction. Thus, the extent of alignment is affected by varying divisional practices across the four schools, as illustrated in the GLM plot below, where the results for divisions vary by school.

Part 4, Page: 35

ARE CAPSTONE GRADES A MEANINGFUL ASSESSMENT MEASURE?

They are helpful but not sufficient. As might be expected, the capstone grade is most highly correlated with the faculty measures of the level of performance during the capstone (>.60). It is modestly correlated with students’ ratings of success (.227) and contribution to development (.149), and only weakly (<.10) associated with differences in the student scales. The grade captures much of the faculty impressions of student performance, but not student, and is not good as a measure of pre/post change.

Part 4, Page: 36

Summary Discussion of implications for our research questions

Below is a recap of the project’s research questions stated what the numerical analysis tells us about them. Please also refer to Part 1, which contains a synopsis of the results from all the components of our study organized into questions that are more clearly stated than our original questions and where the discussion is more thorough.


The faculty scales show faculty perceive students to have gained skills that are precursors to lifelong learning: communication skills, critical thinking skills, managing a large project, showing intellectual engagement (curiosity, originality, independent thinking, pursuing learning opportunities, asking questions, making connections, etc.).

Similarly, the overall means for the student scales indicate students perceive they have made gains in academic and project management skills, understand their own abilities and interests better, have developed more intellectual self‐confidence, and report enjoyment of effortful intellectual effort, including doing research.

In contrast, our data does not show an increase in civic mindedness during the capstone, or increased use, as compared to in prior coursework, of multiple perspectives relating to diversity, considering ideas or concepts from other courses, or generally considering the perspectives of others. Although shifts in advanced degree objectives both toward and away from higher degrees may indicate the capstone clarifies for students their interests and possibilities for success, our data did not show a net increase in interest in advanced degree attainment.

These results are highly consistent for student groups across academic division, GPA level, SES, and gender, and the results support the use of capstones as a universal curricular feature that can benefit all students. Perceptions and results of particular types may vary, however, by factors that transcend these student groups, such as credit hour effort, duration of project, student time‐on‐task, and individual student motivation.


The benefits for mentors are discussed in Part 6, in the analysis of open‐ended questions, and in the synthesis in Part 1. The benefits for students, as we can conclude from our numerical analysis, are those discussed for question 1.


This is primarily covered in other project documents. Our numerical data has shown, however, some variation by school in the average credit hours for capstones and institutional grading practices, with Red having the most intense capstone as measured by credit hours, and grading for capstones by Red being generally lower than for regular courses, and for Tan higher.

Part 4, Page: 37


This is covered elsewhere.


See question 1. Our numerical results generally show positive results. The analysis of comments adds more nuance.


See question 1. Our numerical results generally show positive results. The analysis of comments adds more nuance.

7. How do we modify our programs to implement best practices?

Our means confirm the overall benefits of capstones. Improvements in best practices are best discussed by combining the results of the analyses of the survey comments and focus groups. See the documents in Part 1.

8. How can our history of universal capstones and what we learn through this study produce models for the development of similar programs at other institutions?

This is addressed in the documents included in Part 1.

Part 4, Page: 38

PART 4 TABLES: Senior and Mentor Surveys Data Directory

4.1 Data Directory and Overall Means by Student Subgroup (All, School, Major, GPA Group, Gender)

Scales from Factor Analysis 4.2 Summary List of Capstone Survey Scales 4.3 Capstone Survey Scales and Component Items, Reliability Alphas and Loadings 4.4 Scale Inter‐correlations: Pre‐Capstone Student Survey 4.5 Scale Inter‐correlations: Post‐Capstone Student Survey 4.6 Scale Inter‐correlations: Pre‐ to Post‐Capstone Student Surveys 4.7 Scale Inter‐correlations: Pre, Post, and Pre to Post‐Capstone Faculty Surveys 4.8 Scale Inter‐correlations: Post Student with Post Faculty Scales 4.9 Scale Inter‐correlations: Post Mentor Survey Correlations of Scales with Summative Items

Scale Changes: Pre to Post Capstone, By Student Groups 4.10 Scale and Item Means and Pre/Post Changes by Student Subgroup (All, School, Major, GPA

Group, Gender) 4.11 Significant Pre/Post Changes for Scales and Sub‐items, by Student Subgroups 4.12 Significant Pre/Post Changes for Scales, by Student Subgroups 4.13 Summary Sheet: Means of Scales and Summative Items asked only on the Post‐Capstone Student

and Faculty Surveys

Part 4, Page: 39

TABLE 4.1: DATA DIRECTORY AND OVERALL MEANS BY STUDENT SUBGROUPS The following table is a general directory of all the project data fields (excluding the alumni survey) and the mean values for capstones in our capstone database. It forms a lookup table of information on each database item. As shown in the table headings, the data fields come from the following sources:

• Student bio‐demographic data (supplied by the institutional research offices) • Faculty bio‐demographic data (supplied by the institutional research offices) • Student Pre‐Capstone Survey • Student Post‐Capstone Survey • Faculty Pre‐Capstone Survey • Mentor Post‐Capstone Survey • Department Capstone Policies and Administration Survey • Capstone Course Description • Fields derived from the above, including:

o Pre/post capstone difference scores for items repeated on the two surveys. These start with a “D”, as “DStu41” or “DFac15”. Values of these are available only for capstones where both a pre and post capstone survey was available.

o Scales derived by factor analysis o Convenience scales used in processing, as to select student groups

The table columns include:

• The SPSS name ‐ this is a shorthand name used in SPSS processing. These are also used throughout our analysis to indicate variables and, for survey fields, are constructed as a reference to the survey name and a sequential number based on the order in the survey. For example, “PostStu71” is the 71st item from the Student Post‐Capstone survey.

• A field description, which is the text of the question for survey item. • For survey items that have an underlying scale, the scale range and largest value. For example, a field with

scale 5 and range “SD‐SA” indicates a 5‐point scale with responses ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. In general, for questions with an underlying scale, higher values indicate more positive responses, as more agreement or a higher rating.

• Mean values by school, academic majors aggregated at divisions (natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities), low, middle and high GPA groups, and gender. Within these subgroups, if an ANOVA shows the differences in the means is statistically significant using a two‐tailed t‐test the “Sig.” column indicates this with * = p<=.05, ** = p<=.01, *** = p<=.001.

Note that mean values for the Department Policies and Administration Survey and Capstone Description Survey are weighted by the number of capstones in our database to which they were matched, rather than equally by department. Thus departments with more student majors in our database will have their responses weighted more in the means reported in this table. (Departments are weighted equally in the discussion of these surveys in the Capstone Program Description section. When ANOVA indicated differences in the means were statistically significant, Excel’s conditional color formatting has been utilized to visually differentiate high and low values. Higher values are darker.

Part 4, Page: 40

Table 4.1: Data Directory and Overall Means by Student Subgroups

SS includes busadm, teacher ed

ALL MEANS BY SCHOOL MEANS BY DIVISION MEANS BY GPA GROUP MEANS BY GENDER

line SPSS Name Description or Question Text Remarks: Scale: 1 ??

Range values from 1 to ?? ALL R T W Y Sig NS SS+ HUM Sig L M H Sig M F Sig1 STUDENT AND FACULTY BIODEMO DATA

2SchoolNum SchoolNum

1=Allegheny, 2=Augie, 3=Washington, 4=Wooster

3 CapID CapID Your unique number for each Will b d f

4 Is the student record a duplicate? See above. N=No, YB =yes pre, YA = yes post

5 Year Capstone start year 2009/10 = 2009, 2010/11 = 2010

6 PreEqPost Did mentor who completed the post capstone report also complete ? (Y N)

any difference. May omit if nav.

7 PrimaryCIP Capstone primary program CIP COMCIP1 Translate majors to a code listed in COMCIP1 f " j CIP bl " O l

8 CredHrs Total Capstone semester hours 5.32 8.00 5.00 3.78 3.97 *** 4.79 5.91 5.00 *** 5.23 5.28 5.43 5.35 5.31 9 CapGrade Capstone grade (if more than one , average grade) Numeric scale, average if double

A 4 B 3 C 2 D 1 F 03.25 3.05 3.61 3.15 3.22 *** 3.34 3.20 3.22 ** 2.66 3.26 3.66 *** 3.12 3.33 ***

10 EntryTerm Entry term (YYYYT) at your college e.g. 20061 = fall 2006, 20062 = i / i 2006

11 TransferStatus Transfer status (T or null) If the student entered as a first‐time

ll d l ll T if

12 Gender Gender (M,F) 13 Age Age – as of Oct. 1 of capstone year Round down to whole number. 14 Ethnic Race/Ethnicity (older IPEDS codes) 1=Non‐resident alien, 2=Black,

3 N i A i 4 A i /P ifi

15 ACT ACT composite score Caution ‐ do not report 0 if missing. 25.9 26.19 25.97 23.97 26.29 *** 26.42 25.39 26.24 *** 23.94 25.49 27.62 *** 25.83 25.93 16 SATM SAT Math Caution ‐ do not report 0 if missing. 17 SATV SAT verbal (critical reasoning) Caution ‐ do not report 0 if missing. 18 SATWR SAT writing Caution ‐ do not report 0 if missing. 19 SATTotal SAT Total Caution ‐ do not report 0 if missing. 20 HSPCT HS Rank percentile 0 to 100. Higher for better

d Pl if h81.50 80.34 81.35 75.73 84.22 *** 85.75 79.51 80.19 *** 69.46 80.29 89.24 *** 76.58 84.29 ***

21 TransCred Total Transfer credits ‐ start of capstone year Cretits transferred from another ll l d AP di I l d

22 InstCred Credits earned at your institution, Start of Capstone Year 23 PreCapColGPA College GPA ‐ Start of capstone year Using a 4 point scale. 3.22 3.19 3.36 3.16 3.16 *** 3.24 3.19 3.24 * 2.65 3.22 3.62 *** 3.08 3.31 ***24 FAFSA FAFSA (Y,N)? Indicate whether you have a FAFSA

f hi d i

25 EFC EFC (from FAFSA) Expected Family Contribution from FAFSA S 999999 if FAFSA

26 Need Financial aid: unmet need CDS method Set to 999999 if no FAFSA. Shouuld

b 0 l if d i ll6046 6130 3692 14766 4487 *** 5471 6640 6059 * 7318 5869 5309 *** 6095 6016

27 GrantAid Financial aid: total grant awards all sources (incl. waivers) fall of 15074 14614 13888 12650 17437 *** 16288 14293 14619 *** 13512 14992 16247 *** 14730 15298 28 MotherEd Mother's education level (FAFSA) Highest educ level completed: 1 =

iddl h l/j hi h 2 hi h2.68 2.75 2.63 2.73 2.67 *** 2.74 2.68 2.66 * 2.67 2.68 2.69 2.69 2.68

29 FatherEd Father's education level (FAFSA) Highest educ level completed: 1 = iddl h l/j hi h 2 hi h

2.64 2.68 2.63 2.66 2.61 2.63 2.64 2.66 2.59 2.64 2.66 2.64 2.63 30 TutionRemissed Tuition Remission Recipient (Y/N) Did student receive a tuition

i i i b f

31 GradMaj1 Primary major COMCIP1 Translate majors to a code as in COMCIP1 f " j CIP bl "

32 RelMaj1 capstone relevant (Y,N)? Indicate if the capstone was

l d i f hi

33 GPAMaj1 GPA in major, if capstone relevant Not collecting. Code as missing 34 GradMaj2 Major 2 CIP COMCIP1 Should be in the "maj‐CIP table" 35 RelMaj2 capstone relevant (Y,N)? 36 GPAMaj2 GPA in major, if capstone relevant Not collecting. Code as missing 37 GradMaj3 Major 3 CIP COMCIP1 38 RelMaj3 capstone relevant (Y,N)?

39 GPAMaj3 GPA in major, if capstone relevant Not collecting. Code as missing

40 GradMin1 Primary minor CIP COMCIP1 41 GradMin2 minor 2 CIP COMCIP1

Conditional highlighting used only if differences are statistically signifcant.

This document is a reference for the response scales, labels, and means of ALL the Sr and Mentor survey questions, student and faculty biodemo data, and derived scale and difference values

NOT RESTRICTED TO PAIRED PRE/POST RESPONDENTS, AS IN THE REPORT BY SCALES

Data is for all non‐duplicate records 2009/10 and 2010/11 (not just paired pre/post records).

Table 4.1 2/22/2012

Part 4, Page: 41


Range values from 1 to ?? ALL R T W Y Sig NS SS+ HUM Sig L M H Sig M F Sig42 GradMin3 minor 3 CIP COMCIP1

43CumLoans

Financial Aid ‐ Cumulative loans at graduation using CDS H4 definition

The purpose is to see if debt is affecting choices like summer

24271 18600 19808 23412 34315 *** 24885 23830 22808 28678 25326 19854 *** 24192 24323

44 WorkAidFinancial Aid ‐ amount of work aid awarded and actually used the capstone year

Dropped, but leave the column.

45 CredOthRes Other UG Research credits ‐ total credit hours Dropped, but leave the column.

46 CredStudyAbrd Study Abroad Credits ‐ total credit hours Dropped, but leave the column.

47 GradColGPA College GPA – final at graduation Using a 4 point scale. 3.27 3.24 3.37 3.20 3.24 *** 3.28 3.24 3.28 2.70 3.26 3.72 *** 3.13 3.35 ***

48 Athlete Varsity athletic participation in year of capstone ‐ number of teams 0, 1, 2, 3 18.4% 21.1% 13.1% 16.7% 20.7% ** 19.4% 19.8% 15.9% 20.7% 19.8% 15.2% * 25.0% 14.0% ***

49 SurveyStatus computed from other data

50 FacGender09 Mentor Gender (M,F)Use for both 2009 and 2010 data, despite name.

51

FacDiscipline1 Faculty discipline #1 COMCIP1

For our later reference. If necessary, please add your translations to "dept‐cip table" and submit your entries.

52 FacDiscipline2 Faculty discipline #2 COMCIP1 If any.

53

FacEmplFTPT09 Fall 2009 Full‐time or part‐time employee? (FT, PT)

Based on employment status, not necessarily the same as full‐ or part‐time faculty status. Report only for 2009/10.

54

FacRank09 Fall 2009 Rank (PROF, ASSOC, ASST, INST, LECTURER, ADMIN, OTHER)

"OTHER" to include all visiting regardless of rank, and those without rank. Report only for 2009/10.

55

FacTenure09 Fall 2009 Tenure status (Y, C,N)

As for AAUP report categories: Y=tenured; C=candidate,not tenured; N=untenured, not tenure track. Report only for 2009/10.

56 FacEmplFTPT10 Fall 2010 Full‐time or part‐time employee? Report for 2010/11 only.

57 FacRank10 Fall 2010Rank (PROF, ASSOC, ASST, INST, LECTURER, ADMIN, OTHER) Report for 2010/11 only.

58 FacTenure10 Fall 2010 Tenure status (Y, C,N) Report for 2010/11 only. 59 STUDENT PRE‐CAPSTONE 60 How important to you personally is each of the following?

61 PreStu1 Becoming accomplished in my field of expertise Blanks will be considered missing. 4 Not imp‐essential 3.43 3.33 3.48 3.50 3.45 *** 3.49 3.40 3.40 * 3.41 3.42 3.45 3.40 3.45

62 PreStu2 Influencing social values 4 Not imp‐essential 2.89 2.81 2.96 2.97 2.87 * 2.71 2.99 2.91 *** 2.96 2.94 2.81 ** 2.83 2.92 *63 PreStu3 Raising a family 4 Not imp‐essential 3.09 2.98 3.26 3.08 3.08 *** 3.10 3.20 2.90 *** 3.13 3.10 3.07 3.10 3.09 64 PreStu4 Helping others who are in difficulty 4 Not imp‐essential 3.24 3.15 3.36 3.23 3.25 *** 3.15 3.33 3.15 *** 3.25 3.22 3.25 3.08 3.32 ***65 PreStu5 Creating original works 4 Not imp‐essential 2.90 3.03 2.72 2.98 2.86 *** 2.76 2.82 3.14 *** 2.98 2.92 2.83 * 3.01 2.84 ***66 PreStu6 Developing a meaningful philosophy of life 4 Not imp‐essential 3.20 3.18 3.31 3.18 3.14 * 3.08 3.20 3.31 *** 3.20 3.18 3.22 3.28 3.16 **67 PreStu7 Becoming a community leader 4 Not imp‐essential 2.64 2.53 2.77 2.61 2.66 *** 2.55 2.74 2.55 *** 2.64 2.70 2.59 2.63 2.65 68 PreStu8 Integrating spirituality into my life 4 Not imp‐essential 2.35 2.23 2.53 2.32 2.34 *** 2.33 2.39 2.31 2.34 2.30 2.40 2.23 2.41 ***69 PreStu9 Volunteering in my community 4 Not imp‐essential 2.78 2.68 2.88 2.80 2.80 ** 2.79 2.81 2.73 2.76 2.80 2.78 2.55 2.90 ***70 PreStu10 Making a lot of money 4 Not imp‐essential 2.23 2.19 2.07 2.47 2.25 *** 2.26 2.33 2.05 *** 2.46 2.26 2.08 *** 2.37 2.17 ***71 PreStu11 Working in a prestigious occupation 4 Not imp‐essential 2.27 2.18 2.17 2.47 2.33 *** 2.33 2.36 2.08 *** 2.44 2.32 2.14 *** 2.42 2.20 ***

72 PreStu12 Becoming passionate about or committed to my occupation 4 Not imp‐essential 3.66 3.64 3.72 3.62 3.66 3.67 3.65 3.66 3.58 3.64 3.72 *** 3.55 3.71 ***

73 PreStu13Obtaining recognition from my colleagues for contributions to my special field

4 Not imp‐essential 2.60 2.61 2.50 2.70 2.60 * 2.60 2.63 2.52 2.63 2.62 2.57 2.71 2.54 ***

Table 4.1 2/22/2012

Part 4, Page: 42


Range values from 1 to ?? ALL R T W Y Sig NS SS+ HUM Sig L M H Sig M F Sig

74

Indicate the extent to which you agree/disagree with each of the following statements about your views or perspectives in general.

75 PreStu14 I enjoy expressing my ideas in writing 5 SD‐SA 3.84 3.97 3.87 3.84 3.71 *** 3.51 3.79 4.23 *** 3.69 3.82 3.96 *** 3.80 3.87

76 PreStu15I have confidence in my opinions, even if they are contrary to the general consensus

5 SD‐SA 4.11 4.08 4.11 4.17 4.11 3.99 4.11 4.22 *** 4.22 4.09 4.06 ** 4.32 4.01 ***

77 PreStu16I really enjoy a task that involves coming up with new solutions to problems

5 SD‐SA 4.04 4.03 3.99 4.11 4.03 4.06 4.02 4.02 4.09 4.04 4.00 4.22 3.94 ***

78 PreStu17 The notion of thinking abstractly is appealing to me 5 SD‐SA 3.86 3.88 3.86 3.91 3.82 3.74 3.80 4.06 *** 3.87 3.89 3.83 4.07 3.76 ***79 PreStu18 I enjoy doing research 5 SD‐SA 3.55 3.73 3.35 3.49 3.59 *** 3.76 3.46 3.48 *** 3.48 3.53 3.62 3.60 3.53

80

Rate yourself on each of the following traits as compared with the average person your age. We want the most accurate estimate of how you see yourself.

81 PreStu19 Academic ability 5 Lowest 10% ‐ Highest 10% 3.96 3.96 3.98 3.89 3.99 4.01 3.90 3.98 * 3.50 3.87 4.30 *** 3.97 3.95

82 PreStu20 Creativity 5 Lowest 10% ‐ Highest 10% 3.78 3.76 3.77 3.81 3.79 3.64 3.69 4.04 *** 3.80 3.81 3.74 3.87 3.74 ***

83 PreStu21 Drive to achieve 5 Lowest 10% ‐ Highest 10% 4.06 3.93 4.14 4.03 4.12 *** 4.12 4.08 3.96 ** 3.76 4.01 4.27 *** 3.97 4.10 ***

84 PreStu22 Leadership ability 5 Lowest 10% ‐ Highest 10% 3.89 3.83 3.93 3.83 3.96 3.88 3.95 3.81 * 3.89 3.89 3.90 4.03 3.83 ***

85 PreStu23 Mathematical ability 5 Lowest 10% ‐ Highest 10% 3.12 3.07 3.13 3.01 3.23 ** 3.55 3.06 2.82 *** 2.96 3.01 3.32 *** 3.32 3.03 ***

86 PreStu24 Persistence 5 Lowest 10% ‐ Highest 10% 4.02 3.97 4.07 3.96 4.07 4.13 4.02 3.94 *** 3.95 3.99 4.09 ** 4.03 4.02

87 PreStu25 Public speaking ability 5 Lowest 10% ‐ Highest 10% 3.44 3.38 3.38 3.42 3.55 * 3.38 3.43 3.49 3.45 3.38 3.48 3.63 3.35 ***

88 PreStu26 Self‐confidence (intellectual) 5 Lowest 10% ‐ Highest 10% 3.82 3.79 3.78 3.83 3.86 3.84 3.79 3.81 3.69 3.78 3.93 *** 4.02 3.72 ***

89 PreStu27 Self‐confidence (social) 5 Lowest 10% ‐ Highest 10% 3.62 3.62 3.57 3.68 3.62 3.57 3.68 3.57 * 3.88 3.66 3.44 *** 3.76 3.55 ***

90 PreStu28 Understanding of others 5 Lowest 10% ‐ Highest 10% 4.07 4.06 4.08 4.11 4.06 3.97 4.11 4.11 ** 4.11 4.12 4.01 * 4.01 4.11 **

91 PreStu29 Self‐understanding 5 Lowest 10% ‐ Highest 10% 4.01 4.01 3.96 4.09 4.00 3.96 4.02 4.04 4.08 4.03 3.95 * 4.08 3.98 *

92 PreStu30 Ability to think critically 5 Lowest 10% ‐ Highest 10% 3.96 3.95 3.93 3.92 4.00 3.94 3.91 3.99 3.82 3.95 4.04 *** 4.12 3.88 ***

93 PreStu31 Research skills 5 Lowest 10% ‐ Highest 10% 3.61 3.66 3.56 3.55 3.64 3.74 3.59 3.52 *** 3.39 3.59 3.76 *** 3.58 3.63

94 PreStu32 Ability to think and act on my own 5 Lowest 10% ‐ Highest 10% 4.21 4.21 4.17 4.20 4.24 4.18 4.21 4.21 4.19 4.24 4.19 4.29 4.17 ***

95 PreStu33 Writing ability 5 Lowest 10% ‐ Highest 10% 3.75 3.81 3.76 3.69 3.73 3.56 3.70 3.99 *** 3.46 3.73 3.94 *** 3.71 3.77

96

In evaluating your typical academic work over the past year, please indicate the extent to which you agree/disagree with each of the following statements.

97 PreStu34 I identified manageable sets of goals for my projects 5 SD‐SA 4.05 4.00 4.08 4.09 4.04 4.03 4.07 4.03 3.87 4.08 4.12 *** 3.96 4.09 ***98 PreStu35 I properly planned tasks to achieve project goals 5 SD‐SA 3.91 3.84 3.96 3.92 3.92 3.91 3.93 3.85 3.63 3.91 4.06 *** 3.74 3.99 ***99 PreStu36 I showed evidence of independent thinking 5 SD‐SA 4.25 4.21 4.28 4.24 4.28 4.20 4.23 4.30 * 4.11 4.25 4.32 *** 4.26 4.24

100 PreStu37 I persisted when faced with conceptual and practical difficulties 5 SD‐SA 4.18 4.13 4.23 4.13 4.21 * 4.18 4.15 4.20 4.00 4.15 4.30 *** 4.16 4.18

101 PreStu38 I showed originality 5 SD‐SA 4.08 4.05 4.10 4.12 4.06 3.95 4.04 4.23 *** 4.04 4.07 4.10 4.10 4.07 102 PreStu39 I used feedback to assess my performance 5 SD‐SA 4.18 4.17 4.21 4.15 4.20 4.19 4.13 4.25 * 4.01 4.19 4.28 *** 4.07 4.24 ***103 PreStu40 I located appropriate source material 5 SD‐SA 4.20 4.22 4.20 4.18 4.21 4.22 4.20 4.18 4.06 4.21 4.28 *** 4.16 4.23 *104 PreStu41 I used disciplinary knowledge and methods appropriately 5 SD‐SA 4.12 4.10 4.20 4.12 4.09 * 4.12 4.14 4.10 3.95 4.15 4.20 *** 4.08 4.15 *

105 PreStu42I synthesized information to produce insights that expanded my understanding

5 SD‐SA 4.08 4.08 4.04 4.12 4.08 4.04 4.05 4.12 3.90 4.08 4.18 *** 4.09 4.08

106 PreStu43 I supported my arguments with appropriate evidence 5 SD‐SA 4.24 4.23 4.26 4.24 4.23 4.21 4.22 4.28 4.06 4.27 4.32 *** 4.23 4.25 107 PreStu44 I demonstrated good communication skills 5 SD‐SA 4.14 4.03 4.19 4.23 4.16 *** 4.05 4.16 4.21 ** 4.00 4.13 4.24 *** 4.10 4.17 *

108 PreStu45 I demonstrated effective time management in completing tasks 5 SD‐SA 3.68 3.58 3.74 3.81 3.66 * 3.71 3.74 3.58 * 3.39 3.68 3.85 *** 3.48 3.78 ***

109 PreStu46 I showed skill with quantitative reasoning 5 SD‐SA 3.76 3.70 3.68 3.78 3.87 *** 3.95 3.74 3.59 *** 3.68 3.79 3.77 3.86 3.71 ***

110Please rate your satisfaction with your college in the following areas.

111 PreStu47 Library facilities and services 5 VDisSat ‐ Vsat 4.15 4.28 4.40 3.61 4.15 *** 4.16 4.12 4.19 4.16 4.12 4.15 4.14 4.15 112 PreStu48 Computer facilities and services 5 VDisSat ‐ Vsat 3.78 4.07 4.06 3.64 3.39 *** 3.85 3.78 3.84 3.83 3.75 3.78 3.75 3.80 113 PreStu49 Facilities/equipment in my major field 5 VDisSat ‐ Vsat 3.97 4.03 4.08 3.89 3.86 *** 4.21 3.96 3.84 *** 3.97 3.98 3.94 3.91 3.99 114 PreStu50 Overall quality of instruction 5 VDisSat ‐ Vsat 4.35 4.40 4.28 4.29 4.37 * 4.35 4.30 4.42 ** 4.21 4.30 4.47 *** 4.29 4.37 *

Table 4.1 2/22/2012

Part 4, Page: 43


Range values from 1 to ?? ALL R T W Y Sig NS SS+ HUM Sig L M H Sig M F Sig115 PreStu51 Quality of instruction in my major field 5 VDisSat ‐ Vsat 4.53 4.50 4.53 4.54 4.55 4.64 4.47 4.55 *** 4.41 4.51 4.62 *** 4.48 4.55 *116 PreStu52 Overall college experience 5 VDisSat ‐ Vsat 4.37 4.43 4.37 4.24 4.40 ** 4.39 4.39 4.35 4.24 4.35 4.47 *** 4.31 4.40 **

117

During the past year, how much has your coursework emphasized the following mental activities?

118 PreStu53Memorizing facts, ideas, or methods so you can repeat them in pretty much the same form

4 Very little ‐ Very much 2.46 2.33 2.55 2.65 2.38 *** 2.67 2.49 2.23 *** 2.67 2.49 2.30 *** 2.47 2.45

119PreStu54

Analyzing the basic elements of an idea, experience, or theory, such as examining a particular case or situation in depth and considering its components

4 Very little ‐ Very much 3.25 3.24 3.29 3.27 3.23 3.25 3.30 3.21 3.18 3.30 3.26 * 3.21 3.27

120PreStu55

Synthesizing and organizing ideas, information, or experiences into new, more complex interpretations and relationships

4 Very little ‐ Very much 3.30 3.29 3.34 3.22 3.31 3.28 3.28 3.33 3.14 3.31 3.37 *** 3.21 3.34 ***

121

PreStu56Making judgments about the value of information, arguments, or methods, such as examining how others gathered and interpreted data and assessing the soundness of their conclusions

4 Very little ‐ Very much 3.11 3.10 3.17 3.01 3.14 3.02 3.19 3.08 ** 3.04 3.15 3.12 3.06 3.14

122 PreStu57Applying theories or concepts to practical problems or in new situations

4 Very little ‐ Very much 3.26 3.26 3.27 3.24 3.27 3.41 3.28 3.12 *** 3.18 3.31 3.26 * 3.20 3.29 *

123During the past school year, about how often have you done each of the following?

124 PreStu58 Integrated ideas or information from various sources 4 Never ‐ Very Often 3.52 3.54 3.55 3.41 3.54 ** 3.49 3.51 3.54 3.34 3.55 3.59 *** 3.39 3.58 ***

125 PreStu59Included diverse perspectives (different races, religions, gender, political beliefs, etc.)

4 Never ‐ Very Often 2.93 2.92 3.01 2.91 2.91 2.60 3.03 3.07 *** 2.90 2.97 2.91 2.79 3.01 ***

126 PreStu60 Put together ideas or concepts from different courses 4 Never ‐ Very Often 3.22 3.14 3.26 3.22 3.26 * 3.12 3.23 3.26 ** 3.16 3.25 3.22 3.12 3.26 ***

127 PreStu61Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with faculty members outside of class

4 Never ‐ Very Often 2.61 2.60 2.60 2.61 2.62 2.60 2.56 2.66 2.58 2.59 2.64 2.68 2.57 *

128PreStu62

Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with others outside of class (students, family members, co‐workers, etc.)

4 Never ‐ Very Often 3.11 3.13 3.06 3.06 3.16 3.07 3.07 3.19 * 3.02 3.12 3.15 * 3.09 3.12

129 PreStu63Examined the strengths and weaknesses of your own views on a topic or issue

4 Never ‐ Very Often 2.95 2.95 2.97 2.96 2.93 2.79 2.96 3.05 *** 2.89 3.01 2.93 * 3.01 2.92 *

130 PreStu64Tried to better understand someone else’s views by imagining how an issue looks from his or her perspective

4 Never ‐ Very Often 3.03 2.99 3.09 3.06 3.01 2.90 3.04 3.13 *** 3.00 3.09 3.00 3.01 3.04

131 PreStu65Learned something that changed the way you understand an issue or concept

4 Never ‐ Very Often 3.12 3.04 3.19 3.13 3.16 * 3.05 3.09 3.22 ** 3.07 3.16 3.12 3.07 3.15 *

132

Please indicate how strongly you agree with each of the following statements about your expectations for your planned capstone.

133 PreStu66 My capstone will be intellectually challenging 5 SD‐SA 4.50 4.61 4.39 4.47 4.50 *** 4.53 4.47 4.52 4.41 4.50 4.56 *** 4.42 4.54 ***

134 PreStu67 My capstone will be more engaging than my regular course work 5 SD‐SA 4.44 4.56 4.33 4.39 4.45 *** 4.47 4.43 4.44 4.46 4.49 4.40 4.41 4.46

135 PreStu68 My writing skills will improve 5 SD‐SA 4.16 4.41 3.99 4.02 4.12 *** 4.11 4.14 4.26 ** 4.14 4.18 4.15 4.09 4.19 *136 PreStu69 My oral presentation skills will improve 5 SD‐SA 4.01 4.17 4.00 3.79 4.00 *** 4.14 4.05 3.87 *** 4.02 4.07 3.96 3.94 4.05 *137 PreStu70 My ability to think critically and analytically will improve 5 SD‐SA 4.26 4.41 4.16 4.21 4.23 *** 4.31 4.28 4.19 * 4.26 4.29 4.24 4.19 4.30 **138 PreStu71 My understanding of my discipline will improve 5 SD‐SA 4.37 4.49 4.35 4.29 4.32 *** 4.41 4.38 4.37 4.35 4.37 4.38 4.33 4.39 139 PreStu72 I expect to create new knowledge in my discipline 5 SD‐SA 4.01 4.08 3.93 4.03 3.97 4.10 4.02 3.90 ** 4.08 4.02 3.96 3.95 4.04

140 PreStu73My capstone will lead to a better understanding of my skills, abilities and interests

5 SD‐SA 4.32 4.44 4.28 4.31 4.25 *** 4.29 4.32 4.37 4.31 4.36 4.29 4.29 4.34

141 PreStu74My capstone will help me clarify my career or graduate school objectives

5 SD‐SA 3.75 3.90 3.88 3.73 3.53 *** 3.77 3.80 3.70 3.78 3.83 3.67 * 3.71 3.77

142 PreStu75 My capstone will better prepare me for a job or graduate school 5 SD‐SA 4.09 4.30 4.13 3.91 3.96 *** 4.19 4.12 3.95 *** 4.04 4.13 4.08 4.06 4.10

143 PreStu76 I expect to be comfortable working with my faculty mentor(s) 5 SD‐SA 4.45 4.49 4.36 4.46 4.47 * 4.54 4.43 4.41 * 4.37 4.44 4.50 * 4.41 4.47

144 PreStu77 My capstone will be very stressful 5 SD‐SA 4.10 4.03 4.00 4.25 4.14 *** 4.06 4.12 4.09 4.19 4.13 4.01 ** 3.99 4.15 ***

145 PreStu78Open‐Ended Response ‐ How many hours/week do you expect you will work on your capsone?

14.16 14.94 13.44 12.49 14.98 *** 14.19 14.63 13.32 14.20 14.90 13.48 * 13.35 14.56 *

146 PreStu79What is the highest academic degree you intnd to earn in your lifetime?

2.61 2.67 2.51 2.44 2.75 *** 2.94 2.49 2.45 *** 2.40 2.58 2.76 *** 2.68 2.58

Table 4.1 2/22/2012

Part 4, Page: 44



147Within a year after graduation I plan to (check all that apply):

148 PreStu80 attend graduate/professional school Recode from 1 to 1 1=yes 59.2% 53.9% 55.8% 59.3% 66.8% *** 53.9% 55.8% 59.3% *** 53.9% 55.8% 59.3% *** 55.8% 53.9% ***149 PreStu81 work full‐time Recode from 2 to 1 1=yes 49.7% 49.1% 52.2% 58.7% 42.9% *** 49.1% 52.2% 58.7% *** 49.1% 52.2% 58.7% *** 52.2% 49.1% ***150 PreStu82 work part‐time Recode from 3 to 1 1=yes 33.1% 34.3% 30.8% 33.6% 33.2% 34.3% 30.8% 33.6% 34.3% 30.8% 33.6% 30.8% 34.3% 151 PreStu83 work in a job related to my major discipline Recode from 4 to 1 1=yes 52.0% 48.1% 57.1% 54.7% 50.4% * 48.1% 57.1% 54.7% * 48.1% 57.1% 54.7% * 57.1% 48.1% *152 PreStu84 participate in a community service organization Recode from 5 to 1 1=yes 29.4% 26.1% 43.2% 19.9% 28.2% *** 26.1% 43.2% 19.9% *** 26.1% 43.2% 19.9% *** 43.2% 26.1% ***153 PreStu85 do volunteer work Recode from 6 to 1 1=yes 39.6% 41.0% 39.3% 32.3% 43.1% * 41.0% 39.3% 32.3% * 41.0% 39.3% 32.3% * 39.3% 41.0% *154 PreStu86 travel Recode from 7 to 1 1=yes 51.2% 53.9% 49.4% 50.0% 50.6% 53.9% 49.4% 50.0% 53.9% 49.4% 50.0% 49.4% 53.9% 155 PreStu87 serve in the military Recode from 8 to 1 1=yes 7.4% 2.2% nav 3.4% 1.4% 2.2% 25.7% 3.4% *** 2.2% 25.7% 3.4% *** 25.7% 2.2% ***156 PreStu88 stay at home to be with or start a family Recode from 9 to 1 1=yes 7.0% 6.7% 5.7% 9.9% 6.6% 6.7% 5.7% 9.9% 6.7% 5.7% 9.9% 5.7% 6.7% 157 PreStu89 Other (please specify) text 158 STUDENT POST‐CAPSTONE

159How important to you personally is each of the following?

160 PostStu1 Becoming accomplished in my field of expertise 4 Not imp ‐ Essential 3.35 3.22 3.38 3.44 3.41 *** 3.43 3.30 3.32 * 3.32 3.32 3.39 3.35 3.35 161 PostStu2 Influencing social values 4 Not imp ‐ Essential 2.91 2.86 2.98 3.00 2.86 * 2.74 2.99 2.91 *** 2.98 2.91 2.87 2.85 2.94 *162 PostStu3 Raising a family 4 Not imp ‐ Essential 3.03 2.92 3.19 2.93 3.05 *** 3.08 3.12 2.81 *** 3.14 3.00 2.99 * 3.08 3.00 163 PostStu4 Helping others who are in difficulty 4 Not imp ‐ Essential 3.21 3.15 3.32 3.14 3.22 ** 3.18 3.26 3.16 * 3.14 3.22 3.24 3.06 3.29 ***164 PostStu5 Creating original works 4 Not imp ‐ Essential 2.87 2.94 2.74 2.94 2.87 ** 2.74 2.79 3.11 *** 2.94 2.88 2.82 2.97 2.81 ***165 PostStu6 Developing a meaningful philosophy of life 4 Not imp ‐ Essential 3.21 3.15 3.32 3.20 3.21 * 3.14 3.18 3.33 ** 3.13 3.19 3.28 * 3.25 3.20 166 PostStu7 Becoming a community leader 4 Not imp ‐ Essential 2.69 2.60 2.81 2.70 2.67 ** 2.58 2.81 2.57 *** 2.67 2.71 2.67 2.68 2.69 167 PostStu8 Integrating spirituality into my life 4 Not imp ‐ Essential 2.36 2.21 2.58 2.42 2.32 *** 2.38 2.36 2.36 2.31 2.30 2.44 * 2.24 2.42 ***168 PostStu9 Volunteering in my community 4 Not imp ‐ Essential 2.78 2.69 2.89 2.79 2.79 ** 2.78 2.81 2.72 2.74 2.77 2.82 2.56 2.89 ***169 PostStu10 Making a lot of money 4 Not imp ‐ Essential 2.23 2.16 2.12 2.44 2.29 *** 2.28 2.28 2.12 ** 2.51 2.25 2.07 *** 2.40 2.15 ***170 PostStu11 Working in a prestigious occupation 4 Not imp ‐ Essential 2.27 2.16 2.20 2.41 2.39 *** 2.33 2.31 2.15 ** 2.54 2.27 2.13 *** 2.45 2.19 ***

171 PostStu12 Becoming passionate about or committed to my occupation 4 Not imp ‐ Essential 3.64 3.62 3.69 3.54 3.66 ** 3.65 3.63 3.62 3.55 3.63 3.69 *** 3.57 3.67 ***

172 PostStu13Obtaining recognition from my colleagues for contributions to my special field

4 Not imp ‐ Essential 2.60 2.59 2.51 2.67 2.65 * 2.62 2.58 2.57 2.64 2.58 2.60 2.72 2.54 ***

173

Indicate the extent to which you agree/disagree with each of the following statements about your views or perspectives in general.

174 PostStu14 I enjoy expressing my ideas in writing 5 SD ‐ SA 3.92 4.03 3.91 3.90 3.84 ** 3.65 3.89 4.24 *** 3.78 3.90 4.02 *** 3.91 3.93

175 PostStu15I have confidence in my opinions, even if they are contrary to the general consensus

5 SD ‐ SA 4.15 4.15 4.12 4.17 4.16 4.06 4.14 4.23 ** 4.25 4.12 4.12 * 4.34 4.06 ***

176 PostStu16I really enjoy a task that involves coming up with new solutions to problems

5 SD ‐ SA 4.11 4.12 4.08 4.15 4.10 4.18 4.09 4.05 * 4.12 4.14 4.07 4.28 4.02 ***

177 PostStu17 The notion of thinking abstractly is appealing to me 5 SD ‐ SA 3.96 3.96 3.89 4.10 3.94 * 3.85 3.91 4.10 *** 4.00 3.94 3.95 4.22 3.83 ***178 PostStu18 I enjoy doing research 5 SD ‐ SA 3.72 3.84 3.53 3.75 3.74 *** 3.94 3.69 3.55 *** 3.56 3.72 3.81 *** 3.75 3.71

179

Rate yourself on each of the following traits as compared with the average person your age. We want the most accurate estimate of how you see yourself.

180 PostStu19 Academic ability 5 Lowest 10% ‐ Highest 10% 4.08 4.06 4.07 4.07 4.10 4.15 4.00 4.10 *** 3.62 3.96 4.42 *** 4.07 4.08

181 PostStu20 Creativity 5 Lowest 10% ‐ Highest 10% 3.84 3.79 3.85 3.92 3.86 3.68 3.77 4.09 *** 3.88 3.83 3.84 3.92 3.81 **

182 PostStu21 Drive to achieve 5 Lowest 10% ‐ Highest 10% 4.12 4.03 4.15 4.08 4.19 * 4.22 4.11 4.00 *** 3.83 4.05 4.32 *** 4.02 4.16 ***

183 PostStu22 Leadership ability 5 Lowest 10% ‐ Highest 10% 3.95 3.93 4.01 3.88 3.96 3.88 4.02 3.89 ** 3.95 3.99 3.92 4.10 3.88 ***

184 PostStu23 Mathematical ability 5 Lowest 10% ‐ Highest 10% 3.15 3.05 3.13 3.18 3.24 * 3.61 3.07 2.86 *** 3.02 3.05 3.31 *** 3.33 3.06 ***

185 PostStu24 Persistence 5 Lowest 10% ‐ Highest 10% 4.06 4.02 4.05 4.00 4.14 * 4.23 4.03 3.97 *** 3.98 4.03 4.14 *** 4.08 4.05

186 PostStu25 Public speaking ability 5 Lowest 10% ‐ Highest 10% 3.57 3.56 3.46 3.54 3.69 ** 3.48 3.57 3.61 3.54 3.51 3.65 * 3.79 3.46 ***

187 PostStu26 Self‐confidence (intellectual) 5 Lowest 10% ‐ Highest 10% 3.88 3.87 3.85 3.87 3.93 3.87 3.86 3.87 3.73 3.81 4.03 *** 4.10 3.78 ***

188 PostStu27 Self‐confidence (social) 5 Lowest 10% ‐ Highest 10% 3.67 3.73 3.60 3.63 3.68 3.61 3.71 3.65 3.87 3.72 3.52 *** 3.84 3.59 ***

Table 4.1 2/22/2012

Part 4, Page: 45



189 PostStu28 Understanding of others 5 Lowest 10% ‐ Highest 10% 4.08 4.08 4.09 4.02 4.10 4.04 4.10 4.09 4.15 4.10 4.03 * 4.07 4.08

190 PostStu29 Self‐understanding 5 Lowest 10% ‐ Highest 10% 4.04 4.06 3.99 4.01 4.06 4.00 4.03 4.05 4.06 4.05 4.01 4.10 4.01 *

191 PostStu30 Ability to think critically 5 Lowest 10% ‐ Highest 10% 4.06 4.08 4.01 4.02 4.09 4.07 4.04 4.05 3.94 4.01 4.17 *** 4.20 3.99 ***

192 PostStu31 Research skills 5 Lowest 10% ‐ Highest 10% 3.80 3.90 3.65 3.77 3.84 *** 3.96 3.79 3.65 *** 3.58 3.76 3.96 *** 3.81 3.80

193 PostStu32 Ability to think and act on my own 5 Lowest 10% ‐ Highest 10% 4.25 4.23 4.15 4.27 4.32 *** 4.27 4.23 4.21 4.22 4.23 4.27 4.32 4.21 **

194 PostStu33 Writing ability 5 Lowest 10% ‐ Highest 10% 3.89 3.96 3.84 3.81 3.88 * 3.73 3.84 4.09 *** 3.60 3.82 4.10 *** 3.87 3.90

195How helpful were each of the following for completion of your capstone?

196 PostStu34 Courses outside my major(s) and minor(s) 4 Not imp ‐ Essential 2.10 2.18 2.17 2.05 1.99 ** 1.95 2.13 2.21 *** 2.09 2.08 2.12 2.07 2.11 197 PostStu35 Courses in my major(s) or minors(s) 4 Not imp ‐ Essential 3.46 3.46 3.45 3.43 3.50 3.52 3.40 3.48 ** 3.41 3.44 3.52 * 3.45 3.47 198 PostStu36 A research methods or skills course 4 Not imp ‐ Essential 2.83 2.90 2.65 2.71 2.93 *** 3.04 2.90 2.46 *** 2.95 2.86 2.72 ** 2.73 2.88 **199 PostStu37 A junior or senior seminar 4 Not imp ‐ Essential 2.87 2.98 2.67 2.50 3.02 *** 2.99 2.84 2.80 * 2.90 2.85 2.87 2.81 2.90 200 PostStu38 Assistance from librarians or use of library services 4 Not imp ‐ Essential 2.31 2.27 2.41 2.10 2.37 ** 2.23 2.32 2.33 2.34 2.32 2.28 2.25 2.34

201 PostStu39Training in quantitative methods (statistics, tables, graphs, mathematical modeling,…)

4 Not imp ‐ Essential 2.39 2.45 2.19 2.36 2.51 *** 2.81 2.48 1.55 *** 2.42 2.44 2.33 2.39 2.39

202PostStu40

Training or experience with computer techniques (spreadsheets, Internet, programming, presentation software…)

4 Not imp ‐ Essential 2.49 2.46 2.42 2.45 2.60 2.92 2.50 1.93 *** 2.51 2.57 2.41 * 2.56 2.46

203 PostStu41 Study abroad experiences 4 Not imp ‐ Essential 2.41 2.55 2.23 2.43 2.40 * 2.03 2.44 2.54 *** 2.31 2.48 2.40 2.35 2.44 204 PostStu42 My job or internship experiences 4 Not imp ‐ Essential 2.50 2.37 2.70 2.55 2.43 *** 2.65 2.54 2.26 *** 2.35 2.54 2.53 * 2.43 2.53 205 PostStu43 Volunteer experiences 4 Not imp ‐ Essential 2.06 1.98 2.29 2.08 1.95 *** 1.87 2.17 2.07 *** 2.17 2.04 2.03 1.91 2.14 ***206 PostStu44 My non‐academic interests/experiences 4 Not imp ‐ Essential 2.74 2.78 2.79 2.70 2.68 2.41 2.80 2.95 *** 2.84 2.70 2.73 2.73 2.75 207 PostStu201 A research project/experience new item 2010 4 Not imp ‐ Essential 2.91 2.94 2.89 2.70 2.95 3.11 2.87 2.77 2.89 2.96 2.87 2.91 2.91 208 PostStu45 Other interest/experiences (please specify)

209Please indicate prior research/performance experiences (check all that apply).

210 PostStu202 Course‐embedded research project Recode from 1 to 1 1=yes 77.6% 81.3% 74.3% 74.2% 77.6% 77.6% 75.5% 79.9% 67.0% 78.4% 82.0% 75.7% 78.5%211 PostStu203 Course‐embedded performance/creative project Recode from 2 to 1 1=yes 48.4% 45.2% 55.3% 46.2% 47.0% 42.3% 44.7% 59.4% 43.1% 50.9% 48.7% 53.8% 46.0%212 PostStu204 Summer research project (four weeks or fewer) Recode from 3 to 1 1=yes 6.6% 8.5% 5.3% 5.4% 6.2% 7.7% 7.6% 3.3% 4.8% 5.1% 8.9% 7.5% 6.2%213 PostStu205 Summer research project (more than four weeks) Recode from 4 to 1 1=yes 17.6% 20.4% 8.0% 10.8% 23.7% *** 37.0% 10.6% 7.4% 8.0% 17.0% 22.6% 19.2% 16.8%214 PostStu206 Research assistant for a faculty project Recode from 5 to 1 1=yes 13.0% 16.0% 11.1% 8.6% 12.8% 22.8% 10.6% 8.6% 4.8% 11.6% 18.0% 10.6% 14.0%215 PostStu207 Independent study course/project Recode from 6 to 1 1=yes 40.5% 68.7% 29.2% 21.5% 28.0% *** 44.7% 36.4% 43.0% 31.9% 43.2% 42.1% 45.5% 38.2%216 PostStu208 Research assistant during the academic year Recode from 7 to 1 1=yes 11.7% 16.0% 8.4% 4.3% 12.1% ** 17.1% 10.4% 8.6% 4.8% 11.4% 15.2% 10.3% 12.3%

217 PostStu209 Assistance/apprenticeship with performance/creative project Recode from 8 to 1 1=yes 7.6% 8.2% 10.6% 8.6% 4.7% 3.3% 8.1% 12.3% 4.8% 8.0% 8.6% 6.5% 8.1%

218 PostStu210 Other (please specify) text

219Please rate your satisfaction with your college in the following areas.

220 PostStu46 Library facilities and services 5 VDisSat ‐ Vsat 4.09 4.20 4.36 3.44 4.06 *** 4.13 4.06 4.09 4.03 4.06 4.14 * 4.12 4.07 221 PostStu47 Computer facilities and services 5 VDisSat ‐ Vsat 3.75 3.98 4.04 3.60 3.37 *** 3.77 3.79 3.72 3.74 3.73 3.77 3.74 3.75 222 PostStu48 Facilities/equipment in my major field 5 VDisSat ‐ Vsat 3.91 3.89 4.08 3.86 3.81 *** 4.17 3.86 3.79 *** 3.88 3.89 3.94 3.87 3.93 223 PostStu49 Overall quality of instruction 5 VDisSat ‐ Vsat 4.37 4.43 4.26 4.32 4.41 *** 4.43 4.33 4.36 * 4.23 4.31 4.49 *** 4.33 4.39 224 PostStu50 Quality of instruction in my major field 5 VDisSat ‐ Vsat 4.52 4.53 4.47 4.49 4.58 4.62 4.49 4.48 ** 4.39 4.48 4.63 *** 4.49 4.54 225 PostStu51 Overall college experience 5 VDisSat ‐ Vsat 4.41 4.50 4.35 4.33 4.38 ** 4.39 4.43 4.35 4.26 4.39 4.49 *** 4.33 4.45 **

226

PostStu52

On average, how many hours per week did you spend interacting with your capstone mentor in individual or group meetings relating to the capstone?

2.86 2.07 3.80 2.77 2.98 *** 3.73 2.55 2.66 *** 3.52 2.84 2.54 *** 3.18 2.70 *

227PostStu53

On average, how many hours per week did you spend working on ALL aspects of your capstone combined? 14.11 14.73 11.91 12.65 15.70 *** 15.34 13.65 13.22 ** 14.56 13.69 14.27 13.71 14.31

228PostStu211

What was the origin of the idea for your capstone topic?new item 2010 5

totally mentor ‐ totally student 3.92 3.93 3.86 4.14 3.90 3.37 4.05 4.21 3.88 3.83 4.03 3.76 4.00

Table 4.1 2/22/2012

Part 4, Page: 46



229 PostStu212To what extent did you participate in developing/refining the topic for your capstone?

new item 2010 5 Not al all ‐ Very much 4.28 4.26 4.26 4.11 4.36 4.11 4.26 4.42 4.10 4.22 4.42 4.15 4.34

230 PostStu213How satisfied were you with the process used to select your capstone topic?

new item 2010 5 Not al all ‐ Very much 4.05 4.14 4.00 4.03 4.01 4.16 4.00 4.05 3.98 4.06 4.08 4.00 4.07

231 PostStu214When the project started, how enthusiastic were you about your capstone topic?

new item 2010 5 Not al all ‐ Very much 4.21 4.36 4.03 4.18 4.22 ** 4.18 4.20 4.29 4.19 4.15 4.29 4.13 4.25

232 PostStu215When the project ended, how enthusiastic were you about your capstone topic?

new item 2010 5 Not al all ‐ Very much 4.09 4.25 4.07 3.96 4.01 * 4.17 4.05 4.12 4.03 4.10 4.11 4.05 4.11

233How much has your capstone work emphasized the following mental activities?

234 PostStu54Memorizing facts, ideas, or methods so you can repeat them in pretty much the same form

4 Very little ‐ Very much 1.94 1.89 1.82 2.13 1.99 *** 2.29 1.93 1.61 *** 2.21 1.99 1.76 *** 2.06 1.88 ***

235PostStu55

Analyzing the basic elements of an idea, experience, or theory, such as examining a particular case or situation in depth and considering its components

4 Very little ‐ Very much 3.20 3.20 3.14 3.18 3.24 3.19 3.24 3.10 * 3.23 3.20 3.17 3.24 3.17

236PostStu56

Synthesizing and organizing ideas, information, or experiences into new, more complex interpretations and relationships

4 Very little ‐ Very much 3.40 3.43 3.37 3.31 3.42 3.37 3.36 3.43 3.32 3.37 3.45 * 3.37 3.41

237

PostStu57Making judgments about the value of information, arguments, or methods, such as examining how others gathered and interpreted data and assessing the soundness of their conclusions

4 Very little ‐ Very much 3.14 3.13 3.10 3.06 3.20 3.24 3.22 2.86 *** 3.15 3.14 3.14 3.17 3.12

238 PostStu58Applying theories or concepts to practical problems or in new situations

4 Very little ‐ Very much 3.08 3.14 2.97 2.99 3.12 * 3.22 3.12 2.84 *** 3.09 3.04 3.10 3.13 3.05

239During your capstone, about how often have you done each of the following?

240 PostStu59 Integrated ideas or information from various sources 4 Never ‐ Very Often 3.66 3.67 3.60 3.58 3.71 ** 3.68 3.65 3.61 3.56 3.67 3.69 ** 3.58 3.69 ***

241 PostStu60Included diverse perspectives (different races, religions, gender, political beliefs, etc.)

4 Never ‐ Very Often 2.49 2.48 2.73 2.50 2.31 *** 1.79 2.66 2.84 *** 2.50 2.43 2.53 2.40 2.53 *

242 PostStu61 Put together ideas or concepts from different courses 4 Never ‐ Very Often 2.97 2.95 2.98 3.09 2.93 2.88 2.97 3.01 2.94 2.94 3.02 3.00 2.96

243 PostStu62Discussed ideas from your capstone with faculty members other than your capstone advisor

4 Never ‐ Very Often 2.55 2.59 2.54 2.51 2.54 2.47 2.57 2.57 2.58 2.57 2.52 2.55 2.55

244 PostStu63Discussed ideas from your capstone with others (students, family members, co‐workers, etc.)

4 Never ‐ Very Often 3.16 3.19 3.10 3.08 3.22 * 3.09 3.18 3.20 3.19 3.15 3.16 3.05 3.22 ***

245 PostStu64Examined the strengths and weaknesses of your own views on a topic or issue

4 Never ‐ Very Often 3.02 2.99 3.08 2.99 3.02 2.77 3.04 3.18 *** 3.06 3.00 3.02 2.99 3.04

246 PostStu65Tried to better understand someone else’s views by imagining how an issue looks from his or her perspective

4 Never ‐ Very Often 2.75 2.76 2.94 2.77 2.61 *** 2.29 2.88 3.00 *** 2.77 2.70 2.80 2.71 2.78

247 PostStu66Learned something that changed the way you understand an issue or concept

4 Never ‐ Very Often 3.05 3.04 3.15 2.91 3.04 ** 2.88 3.09 3.11 *** 3.02 3.04 3.07 3.02 3.06

248

In evaluating your capstone work specifically, please indicate the extent to which you agree/disagree with each of the following statements.

249 PostStu67 I identified a manageable set of project goals 5 SD ‐ SA 4.16 4.17 4.15 4.16 4.15 4.22 4.17 4.11 3.99 4.17 4.23 *** 4.03 4.22 ***250 PostStu68 I properly planned tasks to achieve project goals 5 SD ‐ SA 4.05 4.06 4.09 3.99 4.06 4.11 4.06 4.00 3.85 4.06 4.15 *** 3.89 4.14 ***251 PostStu69 I showed evidence of independent thinking 5 SD ‐ SA 4.43 4.44 4.37 4.41 4.48 * 4.40 4.39 4.51 ** 4.32 4.40 4.52 *** 4.40 4.45

252 PostStu70 I persisted when faced with conceptual and practical difficulties 5 SD ‐ SA 4.42 4.41 4.33 4.41 4.49 ** 4.48 4.37 4.41 * 4.26 4.42 4.49 *** 4.36 4.44 *

253 PostStu71 I showed originality 5 SD ‐ SA 4.23 4.24 4.17 4.24 4.25 4.10 4.18 4.36 *** 4.12 4.20 4.31 *** 4.20 4.24 254 PostStu72 I used feedback to assess my performance 5 SD ‐ SA 4.36 4.36 4.34 4.35 4.37 4.39 4.31 4.39 4.28 4.34 4.41 ** 4.25 4.41 ***255 PostStu73 I located appropriate source material 5 SD ‐ SA 4.44 4.43 4.37 4.43 4.49 * 4.51 4.41 4.37 ** 4.36 4.42 4.50 ** 4.40 4.46 256 PostStu74 I used disciplinary knowledge and methods appropriately 5 SD ‐ SA 4.32 4.29 4.35 4.29 4.34 4.45 4.29 4.24 *** 4.18 4.29 4.42 *** 4.24 4.36 ***

257 PostStu75I synthesized information to produce insights that expanded my understanding

5 SD ‐ SA 4.37 4.38 4.31 4.31 4.43 * 4.40 4.35 4.34 4.24 4.33 4.47 *** 4.32 4.39

258 PostStu76 I supported my arguments with appropriate evidence 5 SD ‐ SA 4.42 4.43 4.37 4.38 4.47 4.47 4.41 4.36 * 4.34 4.41 4.47 ** 4.35 4.46 ***259 PostStu77 I demonstrated good communication skills 5 SD ‐ SA 4.27 4.27 4.25 4.27 4.30 4.25 4.27 4.26 4.14 4.26 4.35 *** 4.19 4.31 ***

260 PostStu78 I demonstrated effective time management in completing tasks 5 SD ‐ SA 3.91 3.85 3.98 3.90 3.93 3.99 3.93 3.82 3.65 3.91 4.05 *** 3.71 4.01 ***

261 PostStu79 I showed skill with quantitative reasoning 5 SD ‐ SA 3.94 3.86 3.85 4.05 4.03 ** 4.24 3.87 3.66 *** 3.92 3.97 3.92 3.94 3.94

Table 4.1 2/22/2012

Part 4, Page: 47



262

Indicate the extent to which you agree/disagree with each of the following statements about your experiences with your capstone mentor.

263 PostStu80 My mentor was genuinely interested in my project 5 SD ‐ SA 4.44 4.50 4.34 4.38 4.48 ** 4.60 4.36 4.40 *** 4.38 4.40 4.51 * 4.44 4.44 264 PostStu81 I had access to my mentor when I needed it 5 SD ‐ SA 4.34 4.39 4.24 4.29 4.39 * 4.44 4.27 4.34 ** 4.31 4.30 4.40 4.36 4.33 265 PostStu82 My mentor gave me helpful advice 5 SD ‐ SA 4.42 4.49 4.32 4.41 4.44 * 4.53 4.34 4.45 *** 4.41 4.38 4.46 4.42 4.42 266 PostStu83 I was comfortable working with my faculty mentor 5 SD ‐ SA 4.47 4.49 4.38 4.46 4.50 4.59 4.41 4.43 ** 4.41 4.41 4.54 * 4.47 4.46 267 PostStu216 My mentor encouraged my independence new item 2010 5 SD ‐ SA 4.49 4.56 4.39 4.47 4.51 4.58 4.45 4.50 4.45 4.50 4.51 4.50 4.49268 PostStu217 My mentor gave me useful feedback new item 2010 5 SD ‐ SA 4.39 4.50 4.31 4.42 4.34 4.58 4.27 4.43 4.38 4.36 4.43 4.43 4.37269 PostStu218 My mentor met with me regularly new item 2010 5 SD ‐ SA 4.18 4.60 4.00 3.90 4.02 *** 4.50 4.08 4.16 4.21 4.19 4.16 4.18 4.18270 PostStu219 My mentor and I communicated well new item 2010 5 SD ‐ SA 4.32 4.49 4.23 4.16 4.27 *** 4.46 4.25 4.32 4.36 4.23 4.38 4.37 4.29

271 PostStu220 My mentor had reasonable expectations for my performance new item 2010 5 SD ‐ SA 4.41 4.51 4.34 4.34 4.38 4.55 4.34 4.39 4.38 4.38 4.44 4.44 4.39272 PostStu221 My mentor gave me sufficient feedback new item 2010 5 SD ‐ SA 4.29 4.39 4.19 4.28 4.26 4.53 4.13 4.34 4.29 4.25 4.32 4.34 4.26273 PostStu222 My mentor effectively guided me through the capstone new item 2010 5 SD ‐ SA 4.19 4.36 4.09 4.11 4.13 ** 4.41 4.10 4.22 4.23 4.13 4.23 4.18 4.19274 PostStu223 My mentor provided helpful subject matter expertise new item 2010 5 SD ‐ SA 4.26 4.39 4.13 4.24 4.24 * 4.50 4.15 4.29 4.26 4.28 4.25 4.23 4.28275 PostStu224 My mentor gave me timely feedback new item 2010 5 SD ‐ SA 4.26 4.38 4.17 4.22 4.23 4.49 4.14 4.30 4.24 4.21 4.32 4.29 4.25276 PostStu225 My mentor was experienced in capstone advising new item 2010 5 SD ‐ SA 4.34 4.47 4.08 4.43 4.37 *** 4.46 4.33 4.25 4.32 4.31 4.37 4.36 4.33

277Please indicate to what extent your capstone experience contributed to your development in the following areas.

278 PostStu84Seeing the connection between my intended career and how it affects society

5 Not al all ‐ Very much 3.54 3.41 3.96 3.64 3.30 *** 3.50 3.66 3.37 *** 3.50 3.52 3.58 3.44 3.59 *

279 PostStu85 Learning effectively on my own 5 Not al all ‐ Very much 4.30 4.29 4.30 4.18 4.36 * 4.38 4.25 4.28 * 4.23 4.33 4.31 4.26 4.32 280 PostStu86 Acquiring research related skills 5 Not al all ‐ Very much 4.17 4.24 3.99 4.04 4.29 *** 4.38 4.20 3.86 *** 4.15 4.20 4.16 4.14 4.18 281 PostStu87 Managing a large project 5 Not al all ‐ Very much 4.45 4.54 4.30 4.32 4.53 *** 4.47 4.41 4.46 4.30 4.47 4.51 *** 4.36 4.49 ***282 PostStu88 Having confidence in my own abilities 5 Not al all ‐ Very much 4.29 4.32 4.23 4.25 4.31 4.31 4.29 4.24 4.20 4.31 4.31 4.25 4.30

283 PostStu89 Skill in the interpreting of data, evidence, texts, and/or works 5 Not al all ‐ Very much 4.19 4.28 4.09 4.18 4.19 ** 4.34 4.21 4.03 *** 4.13 4.24 4.18 4.22 4.18

284 PostStu90 Learning ethical conduct in my field 5 Not al all ‐ Very much 3.45 3.36 3.67 3.55 3.33 *** 3.43 3.64 3.16 *** 3.63 3.47 3.34 *** 3.37 3.49 285 PostStu91 Ability to interpret primary literature 5 Not al all ‐ Very much 4.09 4.16 3.99 4.00 4.12 * 4.26 4.05 3.96 *** 4.11 4.08 4.08 4.06 4.10 286 PostStu92 Ability to make an effective oral presentation 5 Not al all ‐ Very much 3.74 3.71 3.80 3.38 3.87 *** 4.22 3.69 3.38 *** 3.80 3.82 3.64 * 3.69 3.76 287 PostStu93 Ability to write effectively 5 Not al all ‐ Very much 4.20 4.29 4.02 4.18 4.25 *** 4.19 4.13 4.30 ** 4.11 4.16 4.28 ** 4.09 4.26 ***288 PostStu94 Ability to think critically and analytically 5 Not al all ‐ Very much 4.29 4.30 4.21 4.27 4.35 4.36 4.28 4.22 * 4.19 4.31 4.33 * 4.25 4.31 289 PostStu95 Ability to think creatively 5 Not al all ‐ Very much 4.09 4.09 4.03 4.18 4.09 3.97 4.02 4.31 *** 4.09 4.07 4.11 4.07 4.10 290 PostStu96 Ability to reason quantitatively 5 Not al all ‐ Very much 3.44 3.29 3.28 3.63 3.61 *** 4.07 3.52 2.69 *** 3.71 3.50 3.24 *** 3.53 3.39 *

291Please indicate how strongly you agree with each of the following statements about your capstone experience.

292 PostStu97 My capstone was more engaging than my regular coursework 5 SD ‐ SA 4.27 4.36 4.15 4.03 4.38 *** 4.37 4.22 4.25 * 4.30 4.23 4.30 4.26 4.28

293 PostStu98 My capstone was more stressful than my regular coursework 5 SD ‐ SA 4.32 4.32 4.25 4.25 4.39 4.29 4.29 4.36 4.38 4.29 4.31 4.29 4.33

294 PostStu99 I worked harder on my capstone than on my regular coursework 5 SD ‐ SA 4.30 4.31 4.13 4.11 4.48 *** 4.32 4.26 4.29 4.35 4.28 4.29 4.27 4.31

295 PostStu100My capstone was more intellectually challenging than my regular coursework

5 SD ‐ SA 4.16 4.23 3.99 4.00 4.27 *** 4.16 4.12 4.20 4.22 4.11 4.17 4.14 4.17

296 PostStu101I developed more academically from my capstone than from a regular course

5 SD ‐ SA 4.01 4.20 3.81 3.74 4.08 *** 4.07 3.98 3.97 4.06 3.97 4.02 4.04 3.99

297 PostStu102 Understanding of my discipline improved 5 SD ‐ SA 4.18 4.27 4.14 4.04 4.20 ** 4.28 4.15 4.14 * 4.13 4.17 4.23 4.19 4.18 298 PostStu103 I created new knowledge in my discipline 5 SD ‐ SA 3.92 4.00 3.92 3.87 3.88 4.01 3.91 3.86 3.91 3.93 3.92 3.87 3.95

299 PostStu104My capstone has led me to a better understanding of my skills, abilities and interests

5 SD ‐ SA 4.28 4.33 4.24 4.15 4.30 * 4.30 4.25 4.26 4.23 4.26 4.31 4.22 4.31 *

300 PostStu105My capstone has helped me clarify my career or graduate school objectives

5 SD ‐ SA 3.59 3.59 3.73 3.54 3.51 * 3.78 3.54 3.46 *** 3.64 3.51 3.63 3.64 3.56

301 PostStu106 My capstone has better prepared me for a job or graduate school 5 SD ‐ SA 3.93 4.05 3.92 3.72 3.92 ** 4.15 3.92 3.73 *** 3.86 3.88 4.02 * 3.97 3.91

302 PostStu107My capstone had a positive influence on my intellectual growth and interest in ideas

5 SD ‐ SA 4.26 4.34 4.22 4.09 4.27 *** 4.28 4.22 4.26 4.23 4.23 4.30 4.20 4.28 *

Table 4.1 2/22/2012

Part 4, Page: 48

303 PostStu108My capstone had a positive influence on my personal growth, attitudes, and values

5 SD ‐ SA 4.11 4.22 4.11 3.97 4.06 ** 4.09 4.10 4.12 4.14 4.10 4.10 4.05 4.13

304 PostStu109 My capstone product (e.g. thesis, paper, art work) was of high quality 5 SD ‐ SA 4.25 4.25 4.26 4.27 4.23 4.29 4.22 4.24 4.06 4.18 4.40 *** 4.16 4.29 **

305 PostStu110 Overall, I had a good capstone experience 5 SD ‐ SA 4.24 4.38 4.14 4.16 4.21 *** 4.34 4.20 4.19 * 4.18 4.18 4.31 ** 4.19 4.26

306 PostStu111What is the highest academic degree you intend to earn in your lifetime?

2.59 2.60 2.44 2.45 2.74 *** 2.90 2.48 2.40 *** 2.36 2.53 2.76 *** 2.69 2.54 **

307Within a year after graduation I plan to (check all that apply):

308 PostStu112 attend graduate/professional school (error for Red?) Recode from 1 to 1 1=yes 55.3% 38.3% 61.8% 65.9% 66.7% *** 38.3% 61.8% 65.9% *** 38.3% 61.8% 65.9% *** 61.8% 38.3% ***309 PostStu113 work full‐time Recode from 2 to 1 1=yes 58.2% 57.9% 55.9% 71.3% 54.9% *** 57.9% 55.9% 71.3% *** 57.9% 55.9% 71.3% *** 55.9% 57.9% ***310 PostStu114 work part‐time Recode from 3 to 1 1=yes 27.7% 26.6% 27.3% 28.7% 28.7% 26.6% 27.3% 28.7% 26.6% 27.3% 28.7% 27.3% 26.6% 311 PostStu115 work in a job related to my major discipline Recode from 4 to 1 1=yes 45.4% 41.9% 50.0% 50.7% 42.9% * 41.9% 50.0% 50.7% * 41.9% 50.0% 50.7% * 50.0% 41.9% *312 PostStu116 participate in a community service organization Recode from 5 to 1 1=yes 24.1% 24.2% 26.8% 23.0% 22.2% 24.2% 26.8% 23.0% 24.2% 26.8% 23.0% 26.8% 24.2% 313 PostStu117 do volunteer work Recode from 6 to 1 1=yes 40.6% 36.7% 46.6% 42.1% 39.1% * 36.7% 46.6% 42.1% * 36.7% 46.6% 42.1% * 46.6% 36.7% *314 PostStu118 travel Recode from 7 to 1 1=yes 43.3% 43.3% 43.8% 50.7% 39.8% 43.3% 43.8% 50.7% 43.3% 43.8% 50.7% 43.8% 43.3% 315 PostStu119 serve in the military Recode from 8 to 1 1=yes 1.2% 1.0% 1.5% 0.0% 1.7% 1.0% 1.5% 0.0% 1.0% 1.5% 0.0% 1.5% 1.0% 316 PostStu120 stay at home to be with or start a family Recode from 9 to 1 1=yes 7.8% 7.1% 7.9% 9.6% 7.7% 7.1% 7.9% 9.6% 7.1% 7.9% 9.6% 7.9% 7.1% 317 PostStu121 Other (please specify) text

318 PostStu226Please describe any particularly positive aspects of your capstone experience.

Positive aspects.

319 PostStu122Please describe any particularly negative aspects of your capstone experience.

Negative aspects.

320 PostStu123What did you learn about yourself as a result of your capstone experience?

321 PostStu124What aspects of your capstone experience do you think will be of most value to you after you graduate?

322PostStu125

Please tell us about any other aspects of your capstone experience that might be helpful to our study of the benefits of capstones.

323 FACTULY PRE‐CAPSTONE

324 Project Behavior: Conceiving and managing a project

325 PreFac1 Identifies a manageable set of project goals 5 SD ‐ SA 3.80 3.86 3.89 3.92 3.64 *** 3.63 3.92 3.82 *** 3.30 3.81 4.12 *** 3.67 3.89 ***326 PreFac2 Properly plans tasks to achieve project goals 5 SD ‐ SA 3.79 3.93 3.86 3.85 3.62 *** 3.68 3.85 3.85 ** 3.14 3.83 4.17 *** 3.59 3.92 ***

327 PreFac3 Demonstrates effective time management in completing tasks 5 SD ‐ SA 3.74 3.82 3.84 3.76 3.61 ** 3.65 3.79 3.81 * 3.04 3.77 4.17 *** 3.49 3.90 ***

328 PreFac4 Persists when faced with conceptual and practical difficulties 5 SD ‐ SA 3.92 3.97 3.96 3.95 3.86 3.83 3.94 3.98 * 3.38 3.91 4.29 *** 3.80 4.00 ***

329 PreFac5 Shows evidence of independent thinking 5 SD ‐ SA 3.90 3.95 3.91 3.91 3.86 3.74 3.89 4.02 *** 3.37 3.86 4.28 *** 3.88 3.92 330 PreFac6 Asks probing questions 5 SD ‐ SA 3.71 3.79 3.69 3.76 3.65 3.54 3.75 3.79 *** 3.13 3.66 4.14 *** 3.69 3.73 331 PreFac7 Actively pursues learning opportunities 5 SD ‐ SA 3.93 4.04 3.95 3.90 3.85 * 3.85 3.92 3.99 3.28 3.93 4.35 *** 3.80 4.01 ***332 PreFac8 Demonstrates intellectual curiosity 5 SD ‐ SA 3.99 4.10 3.94 3.98 3.94 * 3.88 3.96 4.10 *** 3.49 3.94 4.36 *** 3.96 4.00 333 PreFac9 Shows originality 5 SD ‐ SA 3.70 3.72 3.74 3.73 3.63 3.52 3.67 3.84 *** 3.20 3.65 4.06 *** 3.66 3.72 334 PreFac10 Uses feedback to assess performance 5 SD ‐ SA 3.93 4.02 3.89 3.92 3.90 3.82 3.94 4.03 ** 3.44 3.93 4.25 *** 3.77 4.03 ***

335 PreFac11 Demonstrates accurate awareness of own abilities and limitations 5 SD ‐ SA 3.69 3.77 3.66 3.77 3.61 ** 3.57 3.70 3.79 ** 3.20 3.66 4.03 *** 3.56 3.77 ***

336 PreFac12 Demonstrates appropriate confidence in own intellectual ability 5 SD ‐ SA 3.68 3.75 3.71 3.73 3.57 ** 3.58 3.67 3.78 ** 3.22 3.65 3.99 *** 3.63 3.71

337 Research: Investigating in a manner appropriate to the discipline

338 PreFac13 Locates appropriate source material 5 SD ‐ SA 3.91 4.00 3.97 3.90 3.80 *** 3.87 3.96 3.86 * 3.44 3.89 4.21 *** 3.77 3.99 ***

339 PreFac14 Logically interprets and evaluates main points of source material 5 SD ‐ SA 3.82 3.88 3.88 3.86 3.72 ** 3.75 3.85 3.83 3.30 3.80 4.17 *** 3.73 3.87 ***

340 PreFac15 Uses disciplinary knowledge and methods appropriately 5 SD ‐ SA 3.81 3.89 3.93 3.78 3.70 *** 3.82 3.83 3.79 3.29 3.80 4.15 *** 3.71 3.87 ***

341 PreFac16Synthesizes information to produce insights that expand the student's understanding

5 SD ‐ SA 3.73 3.78 3.79 3.78 3.62 ** 3.62 3.73 3.81 ** 3.17 3.68 4.12 *** 3.64 3.78 ***

Table 4.1 2/22/2012

Part 4, Page: 49



342Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Evaluating and constructing arguments with evidence

343 PreFac17 Supports arguments with appropriate evidence 5 SD ‐ SA 3.87 3.96 3.87 3.85 3.83 3.79 3.90 3.90 * 3.41 3.82 4.22 *** 3.79 3.93 ***

344 PreFac18 Addresses opposing arguments or alternative explanations 5 SD ‐ SA 3.51 3.57 3.63 3.53 3.37 *** 3.46 3.53 3.52 2.96 3.48 3.87 *** 3.43 3.56 **

345 PreFac19 Develops convincing arguments to support conclusions 5 SD ‐ SA 3.71 3.74 3.74 3.77 3.63 * 3.60 3.72 3.78 ** 3.15 3.67 4.10 *** 3.60 3.77 ***

346 PreFac20Makes connections to other contexts (across courses, disciplines, experiences, etc.)

5 SD ‐ SA 3.73 3.76 3.86 3.74 3.62 ** 3.58 3.72 3.86 *** 3.20 3.71 4.08 *** 3.63 3.79 ***

347 PreFac21 Shows skill in quantitative reasoning 5 SD ‐ SA 3.72 3.74 3.91 3.75 3.56 *** 3.81 3.68 3.66 3.16 3.67 4.10 *** 3.76 3.69

348Communication: Presenting ideas effectively in written, oral, or other forms

349 PreFac22Writes without distracting errors in spelling grammar, punctuation, usage, etc.

5 SD ‐ SA 3.82 3.92 3.86 3.82 3.73 * 3.77 3.86 3.81 3.28 3.80 4.20 *** 3.64 3.94 ***

350 PreFac23 Writes in a well‐organized manner 5 SD ‐ SA 3.80 3.81 3.85 3.84 3.73 3.70 3.83 3.81 * 3.21 3.76 4.22 *** 3.64 3.90 ***351 PreFac24 Writes in a clear, articulate manner 5 SD ‐ SA 3.77 3.79 3.84 3.80 3.69 3.62 3.80 3.84 ** 3.16 3.74 4.18 *** 3.59 3.88 ***352 PreFac25 Delivers an effective oral presentation 5 SD ‐ SA 3.79 3.78 3.81 3.81 3.77 3.67 3.75 3.96 *** 3.28 3.81 4.08 *** 3.66 3.87 ***353 PreFac26 Delivers an effective poster presentation 5 SD ‐ SA 3.84 3.72 3.82 3.97 3.81 3.73 3.80 4.01 * 3.15 3.74 4.19 *** 3.75 3.89 354 MENTOR POST‐CAPSTONE

355 Project Behavior: Conceiving and managing a project

356 PostFac1 Identifies a manageable set of project goals 5 SD ‐ SA 4.05 4.02 4.10 4.06 4.04 4.11 4.02 4.03 3.58 4.04 4.40 *** 3.93 4.13 ***357 PostFac2 Properly plans tasks to achieve project goals 5 SD ‐ SA 3.98 3.99 4.02 3.93 3.97 4.08 3.91 3.97 * 3.34 3.98 4.42 *** 3.82 4.08 ***

358 PostFac3 Demonstrates effective time management in completing tasks 5 SD ‐ SA 3.87 3.88 3.95 3.81 3.87 3.97 3.82 3.84 3.15 3.90 4.36 *** 3.62 4.03 ***

359 PostFac4 Persists when faced with conceptual and practical difficulties 5 SD ‐ SA 4.23 4.27 4.15 4.21 4.25 4.25 4.19 4.23 3.76 4.23 4.56 *** 4.12 4.29 ***

360 PostFac5 Shows evidence of independent thinking 5 SD ‐ SA 4.14 4.27 4.13 4.10 4.07 ** 4.18 4.07 4.19 * 3.61 4.12 4.53 *** 4.10 4.16 361 PostFac6 Asks probing questions 5 SD ‐ SA 3.89 3.98 3.92 3.90 3.79 * 3.95 3.82 3.92 3.30 3.84 4.37 *** 3.87 3.90 362 PostFac7 Actively pursues learning opportunities 5 SD ‐ SA 4.03 4.11 4.06 4.01 3.96 4.07 3.95 4.06 3.38 4.04 4.48 *** 3.90 4.11 ***363 PostFac8 Displays intellectual curiosity 5 SD ‐ SA 4.14 4.29 4.11 4.10 4.08 ** 4.17 4.07 4.22 * 3.65 4.08 4.57 *** 4.09 4.18 364 PostFac9 Shows originality 5 SD ‐ SA 3.94 4.05 4.01 3.91 3.86 * 3.97 3.87 4.04 * 3.40 3.91 4.38 *** 3.90 3.98 365 PostFac10 Uses feedback to assess performance 5 SD ‐ SA 4.17 4.22 4.13 4.20 4.12 4.23 4.12 4.17 3.72 4.11 4.55 *** 4.06 4.23 ***

366 PostFac11 Demonstrates accurate awareness of own abilities and limitations 5 SD ‐ SA 3.96 4.00 3.99 3.98 3.89 4.04 3.87 3.99 ** 3.46 3.91 4.35 *** 3.88 4.00 *

367 PostFac12 Demonstrates appropriate confidence in own intellectual ability 5 SD ‐ SA 3.93 3.94 4.00 4.00 3.84 * 4.00 3.85 3.98 * 3.43 3.88 4.34 *** 3.90 3.95


369 PostFac13 Locates appropriate source material 5 SD ‐ SA 4.09 4.18 4.14 4.02 4.06 4.16 4.04 4.09 3.64 4.06 4.45 *** 4.00 4.15 **

370 PostFac14 Logically interprets and evaluates main points of source material 5 SD ‐ SA 4.06 4.12 4.08 4.07 4.00 4.10 4.02 4.08 3.52 4.05 4.47 *** 3.98 4.11 **

371 PostFac15 Uses disciplinary knowledge and methods appropriately 5 SD ‐ SA 4.09 4.11 4.13 4.12 4.02 4.18 4.05 4.05 * 3.58 4.05 4.50 *** 4.01 4.14 **

372 PostFac16Synthesizes information to produce insights that expand the student's understanding

5 SD ‐ SA 4.05 4.12 4.07 4.06 3.96 * 4.08 4.00 4.08 3.49 4.00 4.50 *** 3.98 4.08 *


374 PostFac17 Supports arguments with appropriate evidence 5 SD ‐ SA 4.07 4.09 4.09 4.10 4.02 4.18 4.01 4.02 ** 3.53 4.05 4.48 *** 3.98 4.13 **

375 PostFac18 Addresses opposing arguments or alternative explanations 5 SD ‐ SA 3.76 3.82 3.87 3.77 3.65 ** 3.96 3.66 3.72 *** 3.17 3.70 4.25 *** 3.70 3.80

376 PostFac19 Develops convincing arguments to support conclusions 5 SD ‐ SA 3.96 4.02 4.00 3.95 3.90 4.06 3.89 3.94 ** 3.37 3.91 4.43 *** 3.85 4.02 ***

377 PostFac20Makes connections to other contexts (across courses, disciplines, experiences, etc.)

5 SD ‐ SA 3.96 4.05 4.08 3.85 3.90 ** 4.07 3.85 4.00 *** 3.41 3.93 4.38 *** 3.88 4.01 **

378 PostFac21 Shows skill in quantitative reasoning 5 SD ‐ SA 3.95 3.95 3.90 3.95 3.99 4.16 3.76 3.88 *** 3.34 3.95 4.36 *** 3.98 3.94

379Communication: Presenting ideas effectively in written, oral, or other forms

380 PostFac22Writes without distracting errors in spelling grammar, punctuation, usage, etc.

5 SD ‐ SA 3.94 3.93 4.09 3.88 3.91 3.95 3.87 4.00 3.27 3.88 4.47 *** 3.82 4.01 ***

381 PostFac23 Writes in a well‐organized manner 5 SD ‐ SA 4.01 3.99 4.10 4.01 3.96 4.00 3.98 4.04 3.38 3.97 4.50 *** 3.89 4.08 ***

Table 4.1 2/22/2012

Part 4, Page: 50

Range values from 1 to ?? ALL R T W Y Sig NS SS+ HUM Sig L M H Sig M F Sig382 PostFac24 Writes in a clear, articulate manner 5 SD ‐ SA 3.97 3.91 4.07 3.97 3.94 3.95 3.90 4.04 3.29 3.93 4.49 *** 3.84 4.05 ***383 PostFac25 Delivers an effective oral presentation 5 SD ‐ SA 4.13 4.20 4.16 4.11 4.08 4.18 4.08 4.15 3.65 4.08 4.51 *** 4.05 4.19 **384 PostFac26 Delivers an effective poster presentation 5 SD ‐ SA 4.24 4.33 3.96 4.19 4.45 *** 4.26 4.16 4.29 3.79 4.20 4.48 *** 4.18 4.28

385

Please estimate how much you think the capstone experience contributed to the development of the student in each of the areas below

386 PostFac27Independence: Showing autonomy and initiative in thought and actions

5 Not al all ‐ Very much 4.01 4.14 4.00 3.95 3.97 * 4.08 3.93 4.07 ** 3.56 4.01 4.34 *** 3.91 4.07 ***

387 PostFac28 Intellectual Engagement: Demonstrating an interest in learning 5 Not al all ‐ Very much 4.05 4.20 4.03 3.94 4.04 *** 4.09 3.96 4.13 ** 3.59 4.04 4.40 *** 3.95 4.12 ***

388 PostFac29Self‐understanding: Developing an awareness of self (skills, abilities, interests)

5 Not al all ‐ Very much 3.98 4.10 4.04 3.91 3.90 ** 4.05 3.86 4.07 *** 3.49 3.95 4.35 *** 3.85 4.06 ***

389 PostFac30 Project Management: Conceiving and managing a project 5 Not al all ‐ Very much 3.98 4.09 3.99 3.90 3.95 * 4.07 3.91 3.98 * 3.44 3.98 4.36 *** 3.81 4.09 ***

390 PostFac31 Research: Investigating in a manner appropriate to the discipline 5 Not al all ‐ Very much 4.00 4.13 4.03 3.92 3.95 ** 4.16 3.92 3.97 *** 3.50 3.98 4.38 *** 3.89 4.07 ***

391 PostFac32Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Evaluating and constructing arguments with evidence

5 Not al all ‐ Very much 3.92 4.01 3.94 3.86 3.87 3.99 3.82 3.95 ** 3.37 3.89 4.33 *** 3.81 3.98 ***

392 PostFac33Communication: Presenting ideas effectively (written, oral, and other forms)

5 Not al all ‐ Very much 4.01 4.12 4.08 3.90 3.95 *** 4.09 3.91 4.05 ** 3.48 4.00 4.39 *** 3.87 4.09 ***

393

PostFac34

Estimate the average hours per week you spent meeting (individually or in a group setting) with this student as mentor [Please provide an answer as a decimal number in the range 0.0 to 50.0]:

1.72 1.58 2.12 1.41 1.81 ** 1.97 1.41 1.90 *** 1.67 1.69 1.79 1.86 1.63

394

PostFac35

Estimate the average total hours per week you spent working on this student's capstone (meetings, email, reading drafts, etc.) [Please provide an answer as a decimal number in the range 0.0 to 50.0]:

2.97 3.06 4.24 2.88 2.25 *** 3.37 2.51 3.41 ** 3.05 2.98 2.90 2.80 3.08

395PostFac36

What was the origin of the idea for your capstone topic?5

totally mentor ‐ totally student

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

396 PostFac37To what extent did you participate in developing/refining the topic for this student's capstone?

5 Not al all ‐ Very much 3.43 3.50 3.31 3.39 3.48 * 3.35 3.47 3.47 * 3.45 3.44 3.41 3.41 3.44

397 PostFac38To what extent did the student participate in developing / refining his /her capstone topic?

5 Not al all ‐ Very much 4.00 4.12 3.98 3.87 4.02 *** 3.93 3.93 4.15 *** 3.69 3.96 4.26 *** 3.93 4.04 *

398 PostFac39When the project started, how enthusiastic was the student about the topic?

5 Not al all ‐ Very much 4.24 4.48 4.06 4.13 4.25 *** 4.22 4.16 4.36 *** 3.98 4.26 4.42 *** 4.18 4.28 *

399 PostFac40When the project ended, how enthusiastic was the student about the topic?

5 Not al all ‐ Very much 4.27 4.48 4.20 4.10 4.26 *** 4.31 4.16 4.37 *** 4.02 4.25 4.46 *** 4.22 4.29

400

Keeping in mind that each mentoring experience is unique, and the students we mentor have differing abilities, interests, motivations, expectations, etc., how would you rate your level of agreement with the following statements about your capstone mentoring experience with this student?

401 PostFac202 I was interested in this student's project new item 5 SD ‐ SA 4.37 4.42 4.30 4.23 4.46 ** 4.40 4.28 4.47 ** 4.23 4.32 4.51 *** 4.32 4.40 402 PostFac203 I gave this student sufficient access new item 5 SD ‐ SA 4.64 4.65 4.57 4.60 4.71 ** 4.53 4.62 4.78 *** 4.60 4.64 4.68 4.60 4.67 403 PostFac204 I gave this student useful advice new item 5 SD ‐ SA 4.55 4.54 4.41 4.62 4.59 *** 4.47 4.54 4.62 ** 4.54 4.53 4.57 4.50 4.57 404 PostFac205 I felt comfortable working with this student new item 5 SD ‐ SA 4.59 4.62 4.55 4.51 4.65 4.64 4.51 4.68 ** 4.37 4.59 4.76 *** 4.53 4.63 *405 PostFac206 I encouraged this student to work independently new item 5 SD ‐ SA 4.55 4.61 4.54 4.46 4.57 4.60 4.48 4.62 ** 4.39 4.58 4.63 *** 4.47 4.60 **406 PostFac207 I gave this student useful feedback new item 5 SD ‐ SA 4.52 4.55 4.43 4.59 nav nav 4.42 4.53 4.61 * 4.53 4.50 4.55 4.50 4.54 407 PostFac208 I met with this student regularly new item 5 SD ‐ SA 4.32 4.74 4.27 3.98 4.27 *** 4.44 4.19 4.45 *** 4.10 4.39 4.42 *** 4.23 4.38 *408 PostFac209 I communicated well with this student new item 5 SD ‐ SA 4.48 4.54 4.46 4.47 4.46 4.44 4.44 4.59 * 4.32 4.46 4.62 *** 4.41 4.52 **

409 PostFac210I had reasonable expectations for the student’s capstone performance new item

5 SD ‐ SA 4.49 4.55 4.41 4.50 4.50 4.45 4.46 4.57 * 4.39 4.47 4.59 *** 4.47 4.51

410 PostFac211 I gave useful feedback to this student new item 5 SD ‐ SA 4.52 4.55 4.44 4.56 4.53 4.49 4.50 4.59 4.52 4.50 4.54 4.46 4.56 *411 PostFac212 I effectively guided the student through the capstone new item 5 SD ‐ SA 4.28 4.36 4.21 4.31 4.24 4.23 4.28 4.38 4.17 4.26 4.37 ** 4.18 4.33 **

412 PostFac213 I provided helpful subject matter expertise for this student's projectnew item

5 SD ‐ SA 4.30 4.33 4.02 4.34 4.43 *** 4.21 4.28 4.39 * 4.24 4.30 4.34 4.26 4.32

413 PostFac214 I gave timely feedback to this student new item 5 SD ‐ SA 4.47 4.58 4.39 4.39 4.50 ** 4.46 4.43 4.57 * 4.41 4.49 4.51 4.41 4.51 *

Table 4.1 2/22/2012

Part 4, Page: 51

Range values from 1 to ?? ALL R T W Y Sig NS SS+ HUM Sig L M H Sig M F Sig414 PostFac215 Overall, I felt comfortable supervising this capstone new item 5 SD ‐ SA 4.52 4.60 4.51 4.43 4.53 4.52 4.50 4.60 4.33 4.53 4.65 *** 4.46 4.55

415 PostFac216Please describe any notable positive aspects of this capstone experience for you as the mentor.

new item

416 PostFac41Please describe any notable negative aspects of this capstone experience for you as the mentor.

Negative aspects.

417 PostFac42Please note any particularly significant benefits you think the student gained from this capstone.

418 PostFac43Please describe areas where the student should have been better prepared for this capstone.

419 PostFac44Please describe areas where the student was exceptionally well prepared.

420 PostFac45Please share any other observations you have about this capstone you think may be of interest to the study.

421 DEPARTMENT CAPSTONE POLICIES AND ADMINISTRATION PLEAS SEE NOTE [1] BELOW 422 DeptCap1 Your college: 423 DeptCap2 Your department:

424DeptCap3 Name of the person completing this form (in case we need to

contact you to clarify any responses):

425DeptCap4 Is there a course specifically designed to prepare students for the

capstone? If so, what is the name of that course?1.24 1.19 1.44 1.30 1.08 *** 1.15 1.35 1.12 *** 1.14 1.26 1.28 *** 1.17 1.28 ***

426 DeptCap5 Course name

427Please describe to what extent the following items are covered in this preparatory course:

428 DeptCap6 Learning methods useful for the senior capstone 4 not al all ‐ to a great extent 3.50 3.90 3.70 2.44 3.61 *** 3.38 3.55 3.56 * 3.58 3.53 3.42 3.49 3.52

429 DeptCap7 Determining the topic for the senior capstone 4 not al all ‐ to a great extent 3.28 3.27 3.47 2.20 3.65 *** 3.39 3.35 3.03 *** 3.36 3.30 3.19 3.33 3.24

430 DeptCap8 Creating a senior capstone proposal 4 not al all ‐ to a great extent 3.24 3.43 3.05 2.32 3.62 *** 3.31 3.40 2.93 *** 3.39 3.28 3.08 ** 3.25 3.24

431 DeptCap9 Starting work on the senior capstone 4 not al all ‐ to a great extent 2.68 2.61 3.28 2.25 2.60 *** 2.08 2.93 2.84 *** 2.77 2.66 2.62 2.73 2.64

432 DeptCap10 Refining discipline‐specific communication skills 4 not al all ‐ to a great extent 3.53 3.86 3.56 2.46 3.77 *** 3.69 3.43 3.51 ** 3.56 3.57 3.47 3.50 3.55

433 DeptCap11 Assigning students to senior capstone advisors 4 not al all ‐ to a great extent 2.48 2.08 2.32 2.13 2.97 *** 3.22 2.29 2.08 *** 2.59 2.47 2.39 2.51 2.46

434 DeptCap12 Preparation for a comprehensive exam 4 not al all ‐ to a great extent 1.14 1.15 1.41 1.07 1.00 *** 1.35 0.94 1.20 *** 1.14 1.15 1.12 1.11 1.16

435 DeptCap13 Other (please specify) 4 not al all ‐ to a great extent

436How many credit hours does a student receive for a completed capstone in your department?

437DeptCap14 Credit hour choices ‐ number of credit hours (if variable then leave

blank and choose the range in next 2 columns)5.06 5.08 5.75 4.00 4.73 *** 4.09 6.27 3.85 *** 4.64 5.20 5.20 * 4.92 5.14

438 DeptCap15 Credit hour choices ‐ minimum credit hours 5.08 5.03 6.80 2.58 5.31 *** 5.52 5.20 3.21 *** 4.96 5.31 4.93 5.07 5.10 439 DeptCap16 Credit hour choices ‐ maximum credit hours 6.04 5.03 7.15 4.00 6.60 *** 6.42 6.08 4.55 *** 5.87 6.24 5.96 5.93 6.11

440For the credits indicated above, how many weeks will a student work on a completed capstone?

441DeptCap17 Number of weeks choices ‐ number of weeks (if variable then leave

blank and choose the range in next 2 columns)20.83 23.74 19.74 19.56 19.99 *** 22.59 20.04 20.67 *** 20.56 20.64 21.20 20.43 21.07

442 DeptCap18 Number of weeks choices ‐ minimum number of weeks 19.97 23.08 21.14 19.21 18.08 *** 21.63 18.96 19.22 *** 20.14 20.32 19.40 20.22 19.77 443 DeptCap19 Number of weeks choices ‐ maximum number of weeks 22.32 23.93 17.11 28.26 20.76 *** 23.41 19.18 26.26 *** 22.89 21.97 22.26 22.37 22.29

444What best describes how the capstone mentoring workload is distributed among department faculty?

445DeptCap20 What best describes how the capstone mentoring workload is

distributed among department faculty?1.58 1.78 1.84 1.94 1.07 *** 1.12 2.03 1.25 *** 1.70 1.62 1.45 *** 1.74 1.48 ***

446 DeptCap21 Other (please specify)

447DeptCap22 How often does a student in your department who is a double major

do a single combined capstone? 5 Rarely/never ‐ Always

3.14 4.04 2.01 2.84 3.56 *** 3.19 3.38 2.52 *** 3.28 3.15 3.02 * 3.21 3.09

448DeptCap23 Please add any comments that might be needed to explain any of

your responses for this section:

449What grading system is used for the capstone? Check all that apply.

450 DeptCap24 Pass/Fail Recode from 1 to 1 4.2% 9.6% 0.0% 1.6% 4.5% *** 2.9% 5.2% 4.3% 3.4% 4.9% 4.2% 4.3% 4.2% 451 DeptCap25 Pass/Fail/Honors Recode from 2 to 1 11.6% 0.0% 0.0% 89.0% 0.0% *** 6.4% 14.4% 12.8% *** 14.5% 11.3% 9.7% 11.5% 11.7% 452 DeptCap26 Honors/Good/Satisfactory/No Credit Recode from 3 to 1 25.1% 92.6% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% *** 26.0% 28.7% 20.7% * 29.2% 26.0% 21.1% * 28.5% 22.9% *

Table 4.1 2/22/2012

Part 4, Page: 52


Range values from 1 to ?? ALL R T W Y Sig NS SS+ HUM Sig L M H Sig M F Sig453 DeptCap27 Traditional letter grades Recode from 4 to 1 59.4% 0.0% 97.2% 0.0% 97.8% *** 61.7% 54.3% 62.8% * 50.0% 59.8% 66.2% *** 54.7% 62.6% **454 DeptCap28 Traditional letter grades/honors Recode from 5 to 1 4.4% 0.0% 2.8% 22.5% 2.2% *** 3.5% 6.1% 1.7% ** 5.8% 3.7% 4.2% 5.6% 3.7% 455 DeptCap29 Other (please specify) text

456If honors can be awarded in the capstone, what are the requirements? Check all that apply.

457 DeptCap30 Exceptional project work, e.g. A‐level or above Recode from 1 to 1 52.5% 92.6% 6.7% 92.9% 43.7% *** 56.7% 50.3% 54.0% 56.8% 54.1% 47.6% * 51.8% 53.0% 458 DeptCap31 Passing an exam at a high level Recode from 2 to 1 6.8% 11.8% 0.0% 28.6% 0.0% *** 10.8% 3.6% 9.7% *** 7.6% 5.9% 7.1% 7.3% 6.4% 459 DeptCap32 A public presentation or publication Recode from 3 to 1 7.7% 15.9% 6.7% 4.9% 3.0% *** 19.3% 0.9% 9.9% *** 8.7% 8.6% 5.9% 9.9% 6.2% *460 DeptCap33 Other (please specify) text

461Who reviews the capstone for grading? Check all that apply.

462 DeptCap34 No selection made. Recode from 1 to 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%463 DeptCap35 Mentor only Recode from 2 to 1 26.5% 0.0% 56.2% 83.5% 0.0% *** 17.8% 29.3% 33.2% *** 25.8% 27.1% 26.5% 25.8% 27.0% 464 DeptCap36 Mentor and second reader Recode from 3 to 1 56.3% 90.1% 13.1% 28.6% 77.1% *** 69.0% 54.3% 46.3% *** 61.1% 53.1% 55.9% 60.0% 53.8% *465 DeptCap37 Committee of department faculty Recode from 4 to 1 3.9% 2.5% 8.7% 0.0% 2.4% *** 2.0% 3.8% 6.0% * 3.4% 4.5% 3.6% 4.3% 3.6% 466 DeptCap38 Committee of department and external faculty Recode from 5 to 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%467 DeptCap39 The entire department Recode from 6 to 1 13.7% 13.5% 3.8% 28.6% 16.2% *** 16.7% 12.0% 11.6% 13.9% 12.7% 14.4% 15.4% 12.5% 468 DeptCap40 Other (please specify) text

469

If reviewers other than the mentor are used for grading, who has input in the selection? Check all that apply.

470 DeptCap41 The department Recode from 1 to 1 35.5% 62.6% 27.2% 29.7% 23.4% *** 55.6% 35.3% 17.9% *** 34.5% 37.3% 34.4% 37.6% 34.0% 471 DeptCap42 The mentor Recode from 2 to 1 14.4% 13.7% 4.4% 15.4% 23.2% *** 30.7% 3.2% 18.2% *** 12.9% 11.9% 18.2% * 13.8% 14.9% 472 DeptCap43 The student Recode from 3 to 1 10.4% 4.4% 9.0% 0.0% 20.6% *** 26.9% 2.7% 7.7% *** 7.6% 9.4% 13.6% ** 9.3% 11.2% 473 DeptCap44 Other (please specify) text

474DeptCap45 Does your department use a rubric to determine capstone grades? Recode so yes=1, no=0 0=no, 1=yes

49.4% 43.6% 45.4% 70.3% 48.7% *** 62.0% 44.1% 47.7% *** 44.6% 51.8% 50.5% 45.8% 51.8% *

475DeptCap46 Please add any comments that might be needed to explain any of

your responses for this section on capstone grading:

476

DeptCap47 Please indicate any notable DEPARTMENTAL facilities or other resources that are primarily used for the support of your department’s capstones.

477

DeptCap48 Please indicate any notable INSTITUTIONAL facilities or resources that are primarily used for the support of your department’s capstones.

478DeptCap49 What funding is available to seniors completing a capstone in your

department?

479

DeptCap50 Roughly what percentage of students in your department receive funding to support their capstone? [Please provide a single number as your answer.]

23.70 41.78 9.35 12.25 27.33 *** 51.21 11.46 17.43 *** 25.91 24.09 21.60 23.10 24.09

480DeptCap51 Please indicate any areas where you think support for your

department’s capstones is strong or inadequate.

481

DeptCap52 Please add any comments that might be needed to explain any of your responses above for this section about capstone support.

482

DeptCap53 Roughly what percentage of students who attempt your department’s capstone either do not complete it or complete it, but do not receive a passing grade? [Please provide a single number as your answer.]

6.16 2.50 1.52 1.93 13.70 *** 1.51 9.78 4.02 *** 10.32 4.23 5.09 *** 9.90 3.80 ***

483

DeptCap54 Roughly what percentage of majors in your department fail to graduate because they were unable to complete a capstone? [Please provide a single number as your answer.]

1.26 1.13 0.33 1.74 1.85 *** 0.92 1.24 1.55 *** 1.44 1.26 1.14 * 1.32 1.23

484

DeptCap55 Before beginning their capstone, roughly what percentage of your majors had one or more undergraduate research experiences beyond the context of a course classroom? [Please provide a single number as your answer.]

24.68 48.95 13.99 20.19 18.02 *** 34.26 23.13 17.53 *** 28.15 24.29 22.45 * 27.70 22.71 **

Table 4.1 2/22/2012

Part 4, Page: 53



485

DeptCap56 Before beginning their capstone, roughly what percentage of your majors had one or more performances, exhibits or presentations given beyond the context of a course classroom? [Please provide a single number as your answer.]

14.26 21.46 18.29 11.71 6.20 *** 20.77 8.78 20.07 *** 12.75 14.46 15.17 12.51 15.45

486

DeptCap57 Roughly what percentage of your majors present their capstone work at a professional or undergraduate conference? [Please provide a single number as your answer.]

18.42 20.60 19.99 3.32 22.21 *** 38.91 11.00 10.31 *** 17.11 19.19 18.61 18.41 18.43

487

DeptCap58 Roughly what percentage of your majors exhibit / perform /present their capstone projects in professional venues outside of the college? [Please provide a single number as your answer.]

9.03 11.66 11.10 2.77 8.18 *** 21.11 3.64 6.77 *** 9.30 9.73 8.13 9.39 8.79

488

DeptCap59 Roughly what percentage of your majors publish their capstone work in professional journals? [Please provide a single number as your answer.]

3.63 5.60 0.60 1.21 5.76 *** 10.05 1.20 1.33 *** 3.42 3.91 3.49 4.21 3.25

489DeptCap60 Does your department have stated learning outcomes for the

capstone?Recode so yes=1, no=0 0=no, 1=yes

79.3% 86.1% 93.4% 95.1% 57.2% *** 72.2% 80.4% 91.1% *** 80.0% 79.4% 78.6% 77.9% 80.1%

490 DeptCap61 If yes, what are those outcomes?

491DeptCap62 Does your department assess the effectiveness of its capstone? Yes Recode so yes=1, no=0 0=no, 1=yes

93.9% 100.0% 100.0% 65.4% 100.0% *** 99.5% 88.9% 100.0% *** 90.5% 93.5% 97.0% ** 92.5% 94.8%

492DeptCap63 Does your department assess the effectiveness of its capstone? No Recode so yes=1, no=0 0=no, 1=yes

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

493DeptCap64 If yes, what methods are used to assess the effectiveness of your

capstone course(s)?

494

DeptCap65 Please add any comments that might be needed to explain any of your responses for this section or make comments on any aspects of your department's administration of capstones:

495 CAPSTONE COURSE DESCRIPTION PLEAS SEE NOTE [1] BELOW [2] 496 CapType1 Please identify your institution. 497 CapType2 Please identify your department.

498

CapType3Please supply a word, phrase, course code and/or short description for this type of capstone that will identify it and, if applicable, differentiate it from others in your department:

499 CapType4In case we need to contact you to clarify responses, who is completing this survey?

500

Please indicate the degree of importance each of the following has as part of capstones of this type:

501 CapType5 Collaboration with other students ‐ essential 4 Not imp ‐ Essential 2.33 1.65 2.85 nav 2.17 nav 1.77 2.65 2.66 *** 2.33 2.32 2.33 2.34 2.32 502 CapType6 A literature search and review ‐ essential 4 Not imp ‐ Essential 3.82 3.85 3.72 nav 3.88 nav 3.79 3.88 3.72 *** 3.84 3.82 3.81 3.82 3.82

503CapType7

Use of other library services (e.g. library instruction, reference librarian assistance, special collections) ‐ essential

4 Not imp ‐ Essential 2.50 2.24 3.00 nav 2.26 nav 2.16 2.46 2.91 *** 2.32 2.47 2.63 ** 2.46 2.52

504CapType8

Generation of data through direct measurement (e.g. through experiments, observation, questionnaires, interviews, etc.) ‐ essential

4 Not imp ‐ Essential 2.62 3.23 2.24 nav 2.48 nav 3.41 2.25 2.07 *** 2.72 2.62 2.57 2.59 2.65

505 CapType9 Laboratory experimentation ‐ essential 4 Not imp ‐ Essential 2.71 2.72 2.03 nav 3.01 nav 3.11 2.41 1.83 *** 2.68 2.77 2.67 2.73 2.70 506 CapType10 Statistical analysis of data ‐ essential 4 Not imp ‐ Essential 2.40 2.81 1.84 nav 2.53 nav 2.67 2.37 1.82 *** 2.67 2.33 2.28 *** 2.54 2.31 **507 CapType11 Questionnaire construction and analysis ‐ essential 4 Not imp ‐ Essential 1.59 1.67 1.86 nav 1.23 nav 1.45 1.63 1.63 * 1.43 1.63 1.63 ** 1.43 1.68 ***

508 CapType12Field study (e.g. research or projects carried out on location) ‐ essential

4 Not imp ‐ Essential 1.81 1.91 1.77 nav 1.78 nav 2.06 1.78 1.63 *** 1.85 1.82 1.78 1.84 1.79

509 CapType13 Clinical or practicum experiences ‐ essential 4 Not imp ‐ Essential 2.10 1.18 2.82 nav 1.19 nav 1.89 2.57 1.62 *** 1.51 2.21 2.27 *** 1.88 2.21 *

510 CapType14 Civic engagement or service learning experiences ‐ essential 4 Not imp ‐ Essential 1.87 1.05 3.01 nav 1.30 nav 1.23 2.19 2.05 *** 1.64 1.91 1.97 * 1.78 1.93

511 CapType15 Internship experiences ‐ essential 4 Not imp ‐ Essential 1.82 1.15 2.52 nav 1.42 nav 1.70 2.20 1.18 *** 1.44 1.94 1.94 *** 1.61 1.96 ***

512 CapType16 Production of a written thesis or substantial paper ‐ essential 4 Not imp ‐ Essential 3.95 3.96 3.85 nav 4.00 nav 4.00 4.00 3.81 *** 3.95 3.95 3.94 3.96 3.94

513 CapType17 A written examination ‐ essential 4 Not imp ‐ Essential 1.55 1.41 1.70 nav 1.40 nav 1.43 1.12 2.52 *** 1.62 1.48 1.57 1.62 1.49

514 CapType18Creation of or contribution to an artistic performance or product (music, art, theater, literary work ...) ‐ essential

4 Not imp ‐ Essential 2.38 1.93 1.63 nav 3.27 nav 1.27 1.28 2.64 *** 2.15 2.55 2.36 2.09 2.55 *

Table 4.1 2/22/2012

Part 4, Page: 54



515 CapType19 An oral presentation of project progress or results ‐ essential 4 Not imp ‐ Essential 3.50 3.53 3.48 nav 3.49 nav 3.59 3.36 3.62 ** 3.51 3.47 3.51 3.59 3.43 *

516 CapType20 An oral examination of the project ‐ essential 4 Not imp ‐ Essential 3.62 3.62 3.00 nav 4.00 nav 3.72 3.67 3.32 *** 3.62 3.65 3.58 3.61 3.62 517 CapType21 A poster presentation of project results ‐ essential 4 Not imp ‐ Essential 2.10 2.41 2.78 nav 1.25 nav 3.09 1.92 1.44 *** 2.11 2.25 1.95 * 2.05 2.15

518CapType22

A reflective analysis concerning the project (e.g., its value, lessons learned, contribution to the discipline or to self‐knowledge, etc.) ‐ essential

4 Not imp ‐ Essential 3.15 2.39 3.38 nav 3.25 nav 3.23 2.74 3.69 *** 3.14 3.16 3.14 3.03 3.22 *

519 CapType23If additional context is needed to understand the responses in this section, please provide it here.

520 CapType24 When is the faculty mentor typically chosen/assigned? 96.9% 104.4% 95.3% nav 93.7% nav 91.5% 98.4% 103.7% ** 98.6% 96.7% 96.0% 98.9% 95.6% 521 CapType25 Other (please specify)

522 CapType26 How is a student typically paired with a mentor for the capstone? 2.06 2.68 1.33 nav 2.24 nav 2.62 1.79 1.81 *** 2.12 2.08 1.99 2.06 2.05

523 CapType27 Other (please specify)

524 CapType28 How often are students assigned to the mentor of their first choice? 5 Rarely never ‐ Always 3.86 3.44 3.57 nav 4.22 nav 3.86 3.96 3.52 *** 3.79 3.82 3.94 3.82 3.88

525When the mentor paired with a student is NOT the student's first choice, how often is the reason:

526 CapType29 To distribute the mentoring workload more evenly? 5 Rarely never ‐ Always 3.47 3.54 4.23 nav 3.07 nav 4.05 3.20 3.37 *** 3.30 3.63 3.44 * 3.28 3.61 **527 CapType30 To better match faculty interests or expertise 5 Rarely never ‐ Always 3.36 3.65 2.01 nav 3.63 nav 2.94 3.63 3.47 *** 3.38 3.32 3.39 3.44 3.31

528 CapType31 The first choice is on leave or otherwise temporarily unavailable 5 Rarely never ‐ Always 2.49 2.21 1.65 nav 2.94 nav 2.59 2.39 2.20 2.36 2.50 2.58 2.38 2.56

529 CapType32 The faculty member would prefer not work with the student 5 Rarely never ‐ Always 1.55 1.92 1.33 nav 1.40 nav 1.39 1.87 1.20 *** 1.56 1.57 1.54 1.51 1.58

530 CapType33 Other (please specify) text

531 CapType34If mentors supervise multiple students at one time, how is the mentoring typically structured (select the best option):

2.34 2.14 2.73 nav 2.16 nav 3.07 2.30 1.56 *** 2.25 2.43 2.32 2.16 2.46 **


533 CapType36 Typically, how is the capstone topic determined? 2.22 2.23 2.11 nav 2.31 nav 2.32 2.35 1.81 *** 2.40 2.17 2.17 * 2.28 2.19 534 CapType37 Other (please specify) text

535 CapType38How often are students’ projects allied with faculty mentors’ creative, scholarly, or research projects?

5 Rarely never ‐ Always 2.36 2.23 1.73 nav 3.04 nav 3.05 2.20 1.87 *** 2.50 2.32 2.30 2.34 2.37

536 CapType39How often are student’s projects allied with faculty mentors’ interests or expertise?

5 Rarely never ‐ Always 3.29 3.50 2.65 nav 3.78 nav 3.74 3.24 2.86 *** 3.34 3.29 3.26 3.26 3.31


538 [2] White's Captype data could not be linked to the student data due to an anomoly with SurveyMonkey.

539 540 DERIVED DIFFERENCE SCORES, SCALES, AND MISC. 541 PreStu79Bach bachelors 10.9% 9.4% 9.9% 16.6% 9.4% ** 9.0% 10.4% 14.3% * 17.5% 10.5% 7.9% *** 14.2% 9.3% **542 PreStu79Masters masters 48.8% 48.3% 58.0% 46.1% 44.4% *** 37.8% 54.4% 51.0% *** 50.6% 50.5% 46.3% 38.0% 54.1% ***543 PreStu79Law law (JD) 6.7% 6.9% 3.3% 10.4% 6.7% ** 1.4% 9.4% 7.1% *** 5.8% 7.0% 7.0% 9.7% 5.3% ***544 PreStu79Doc doctorate 33.6% 35.4% 28.8% 27.0% 39.6% *** 51.8% 25.7% 27.6% *** 26.1% 32.0% 38.8% *** 38.1% 31.3% **545 PreAdvDeg Planning advanced degree 89.1% 90.6% 90.1% 83.4% 90.6% ** 91.0% 89.6% 85.7% * 82.5% 89.5% 92.1% *** 85.8% 90.7% **546 PreGradProfSchl Plans to attend grad/prof school 59.2% 53.9% 55.8% 59.3% 66.8% *** 53.9% 55.8% 59.3% *** 53.9% 55.8% 59.3% *** 55.8% 53.9% ***547 PostStu111Bach bachelors 12.8% 13.0% 11.6% 18.0% 11.3% 10.3% 11.6% 17.1% ** 18.4% 14.7% 8.3% *** 14.0% 12.2% 548 PostStu111Masters masters 48.4% 46.9% 59.4% 46.4% 42.7% *** 39.1% 54.0% 51.5% *** 51.4% 48.6% 46.6% 40.3% 52.4% ***549 PostStu111Law law (JD) 5.8% 7.2% 2.1% 7.7% 6.3% ** 1.0% 8.7% 5.4% *** 6.2% 5.1% 6.2% 0.08 0.05 **550 PostStu111Doc doctorate 33.0% 32.9% 27.0% 27.9% 39.7% *** 49.6% 25.7% 26.0% *** 24.0% 31.5% 38.9% *** 37.8% 30.7% **551 PostGradProfSchl Plans to attend grad/prof school 55.3% 38.3% 61.8% 65.9% 66.7% *** 38.3% 61.8% 65.9% *** 38.3% 61.8% 65.9% *** 61.8% 38.3% ***552 PostAdvDeg Planning advanced degree 87.2% 87.0% 88.4% 82.0% 88.7% 89.7% 88.4% 82.9% ** 81.6% 85.3% 91.7% *** 86.0% 87.8% 553 DStu1 CHG: Becoming accomplished in my field of expertise ‐0.10 ‐0.14 ‐0.14 ‐0.06 ‐0.06 ‐0.11 ‐0.11 ‐0.11 ‐0.17 ‐0.09 ‐0.09 ‐0.09 ‐0.11 554 Dstu2 CHG: Influencing social values 0.03 0.07 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.03 ‐0.03 0.08 0.03 0.04

[1] The means indicated are for the cases in the capstone database with a value, N =1037. Note that this is different than the means based on one survey response per department. In effect, the means shown weight the departmental repsonses by the number of students in the database experiencing their capstone.

Table 4.1 2/22/2012

Part 4, Page: 55


Range values from 1 to ?? ALL R T W Y Sig NS SS+ HUM Sig L M H Sig M F Sig555 DStu3 CHG: Raising a family ‐0.05 ‐0.06 ‐0.08 ‐0.05 ‐0.01 ‐0.01 ‐0.05 ‐0.06 ‐0.03 ‐0.06 ‐0.05 ‐0.04 ‐0.05 556 DStu4 CHG: Helping others who are in difficulty ‐0.01 0.01 ‐0.05 0.00 ‐0.02 0.00 ‐0.04 0.02 ‐0.16 0.00 0.03 ** ‐0.01 ‐0.01 557 DStu5 CHG: Creating original works ‐0.04 ‐0.08 0.02 ‐0.04 ‐0.04 ‐0.07 ‐0.01 ‐0.05 ‐0.03 ‐0.02 ‐0.05 ‐0.08 ‐0.02 558 DStu6 CHG: Developing a meaningful philosophy of life 0.02 ‐0.02 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.04 ‐0.01 0.02 ‐0.03 ‐0.01 0.06 ‐0.01 0.03 559 DStu7 CHG: Becoming a community leader 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.16 0.01 0.00 0.07 0.03 ‐0.05 0.00 0.10 * 0.02 0.04 560 DStu8 CHG: Integrating spirituality into my life 0.00 ‐0.03 0.02 0.12 ‐0.04 0.04 ‐0.02 0.02 ‐0.06 0.01 0.01 ‐0.04 0.01 561 DStu9 CHG: Volunteering in my community ‐0.01 ‐0.03 0.02 0.07 ‐0.06 ‐0.02 0.00 0.00 ‐0.05 ‐0.04 0.03 0.02 ‐0.02 562 DStu10 CHG: Making a lot of money 0.01 ‐0.03 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.01 ‐0.01 0.04 ‐0.05 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.01 563 DStu11 CHG: Working in a prestigious occupation 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 ‐0.01 0.06 0.00 ‐0.03 0.04 0.00 0.01

564 DStu12 CHG: Becoming passionate about or committed to my occupation ‐0.03 ‐0.03 ‐0.03 ‐0.08 ‐0.01 ‐0.06 ‐0.02 ‐0.05 ‐0.05 ‐0.04 ‐0.02 ‐0.02 ‐0.04

565 DStu13CHG: Obtaining recognition from my colleagues for contributions to my special field

0.00 ‐0.06 ‐0.05 0.09 0.05 0.02 ‐0.02 ‐0.01 ‐0.11 ‐0.02 0.05 ‐0.08 0.03 *

566 DStu14 CHG: I enjoy expressing my ideas in writing 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.01 0.09 0.07 0.04 0.08 0.05

567 DStu15CHG: I have confidence in my opinions, even if they are contrary to the general consensus

0.05 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.08 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.06

568 DStu16CHG: I really enjoy a task that involves coming up with new solutions to problems

0.07 0.09 0.09 0.01 0.06 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.09 0.06 0.03 0.09

569 DStu17 CHG: The notion of thinking abstractly is appealing to me 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.16 0.10 0.10 0.06 0.07 0.13 0.03 0.11 0.11 0.07 570 DStu18 CHG: I enjoy doing research 0.16 0.13 0.17 0.22 0.15 0.16 0.22 0.09 0.11 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.16 571 DStu19 CHG: Academic ability 0.09 0.10 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.04 0.10 572 DStu20 CHG: Creativity 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.12 0.06 0.04 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.02 0.08 0.05 0.07 573 DStu21 CHG: Drive to achieve 0.05 0.08 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.09 0.01 0.07 574 DStu22 CHG: Leadership ability 0.03 0.03 0.06 ‐0.01 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.04 575 DStu23 CHG: Mathematical ability 0.02 ‐0.01 ‐0.02 0.09 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.00 576 DStu24 CHG: Persistence 0.04 0.04 ‐0.02 0.03 0.08 0.07 0.00 0.05 ‐0.03 0.04 0.07 0.02 0.04 577 DStu25 CHG: Public speaking ability 0.14 0.17 0.11 0.08 0.16 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.08 0.12 0.18 0.13 0.15 578 DStu26 CHG: Self‐confidence (intellectual) 0.09 0.08 0.14 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.09 0.10 0.03 0.08 0.12 0.08 0.09 579 DStu27 CHG: Self‐confidence (social) 0.05 0.08 0.08 ‐0.04 0.05 0.07 ‐0.01 0.11 ‐0.05 0.04 0.10 * 0.07 0.05 580 DStu28 CHG: Understanding of others 0.02 0.00 0.05 ‐0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 ‐0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.07 ‐0.01 581 DStu29 CHG: Self‐understanding 0.05 0.09 0.05 ‐0.07 0.07 0.06 0.03 0.07 0.01 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.05 582 DStu30 CHG: Ability to think critically 0.10 0.13 0.11 0.03 0.10 0.12 0.12 0.05 0.15 0.06 0.12 0.09 0.11 583 DStu31 CHG: Research skills 0.20 0.26 0.11 0.23 0.19 * 0.24 0.22 0.15 0.20 0.18 0.22 0.23 0.19 584 DStu32 CHG: Ability to think and act on my own 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.03 0.02 ‐0.01 0.02 0.07 ‐0.01 0.06 585 DStu33 CHG: Writing ability 0.13 0.15 0.10 0.06 0.18 0.18 0.13 0.08 0.09 0.12 0.16 0.14 0.13 586 DStu34 CHG: I identified manageable sets of goals for my projects 0.08 0.17 0.02 0.08 0.03 0.13 0.10 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.09 ‐0.01 0.12 *587 DStu35 CHG: I properly planned tasks to achieve project goals 0.10 0.19 0.09 0.05 0.03 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.19 0.11 0.06 0.05 0.12 588 DStu36 CHG: I showed evidence of independent thinking 0.20 0.23 0.12 0.18 0.23 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.19 0.21 0.09 0.24 ***

589 DStu37 CHG: I persisted when faced with conceptual and practical difficulties 0.23 0.29 0.08 0.24 0.26 ** 0.27 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.30 0.18 0.15 0.26 *

590 DStu38 CHG: I showed originality 0.16 0.23 0.06 0.11 0.20 * 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.12 0.15 0.19 0.08 0.20 *591 DStu39 CHG: I used feedback to assess my performance 0.17 0.15 0.14 0.18 0.21 0.17 0.16 0.17 0.21 0.16 0.16 0.14 0.18 592 DStu40 CHG: I located appropriate source material 0.21 0.22 0.14 0.21 0.26 0.25 0.22 0.16 0.32 0.20 0.17 * 0.22 0.20

593 DStu41 CHG: I used disciplinary knowledge and methods appropriately 0.19 0.18 0.14 0.22 0.20 0.30 0.19 0.12 ** 0.27 0.13 0.19 0.14 0.20

594 DStu42CHG: I synthesized information to produce insights that expanded my understanding

0.30 0.30 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.36 0.31 0.24 0.37 0.27 0.28 0.23 0.32

595 DStu43 CHG: I supported my arguments with appropriate evidence 0.18 0.19 0.10 0.15 0.23 0.23 0.21 0.08 * 0.25 0.17 0.15 0.08 0.22 **

596 DStu44 CHG: I demonstrated good communication skills 0.13 0.18 0.09 0.00 0.14 0.20 0.14 0.02 ** 0.09 0.15 0.12 0.04 0.16 *

597 DStu45 CHG: I demonstrated effective time management in completing tasks 0.20 0.25 0.20 0.06 0.23 0.27 0.19 0.19 0.22 0.24 0.17 0.22 0.20

598 DStu46 CHG: I showed skill with quantitative reasoning 0.12 0.05 0.05 0.20 0.21 0.30 0.13 ‐0.13 *** 0.11 0.15 0.11 0.02 0.17 *

Table 4.1 2/22/2012

Part 4, Page: 56


Range values from 1 to ?? ALL R T W Y Sig NS SS+ HUM Sig L M H Sig M F Sig599 DStu47 CHG: Library facilities and services ‐0.09 ‐0.10 ‐0.07 ‐0.14 ‐0.06 ‐0.03 ‐0.12 ‐0.11 ‐0.19 ‐0.10 ‐0.04 ‐0.04 ‐0.11 600 DStu48 CHG: Computer facilities and services ‐0.05 ‐0.10 ‐0.02 0.00 ‐0.04 ‐0.07 ‐0.01 ‐0.09 ‐0.07 ‐0.06 ‐0.03 0.02 ‐0.07 601 DStu49 CHG: Facilities/equipment in my major field ‐0.07 ‐0.12 ‐0.02 0.00 ‐0.06 ‐0.05 ‐0.11 ‐0.06 ‐0.14 ‐0.13 0.01 * ‐0.03 ‐0.08 602 DStu50 CHG: Overall quality of instruction 0.00 0.01 ‐0.03 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 ‐0.06 0.04 ‐0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 603 DStu51 CHG: Quality of instruction in my major field ‐0.03 0.01 ‐0.09 ‐0.08 ‐0.01 ‐0.04 ‐0.02 ‐0.07 ‐0.02 ‐0.08 0.00 ‐0.04 ‐0.03 604 DStu52 CHG: Overall college experience 0.00 0.02 ‐0.08 0.08 ‐0.02 ‐0.02 0.01 ‐0.05 ‐0.04 ‐0.01 0.02 ‐0.04 0.01

605 DStu53CHG: Memorizing facts, ideas, or methods so you can repeat them in pretty much the same form

‐0.52 ‐0.42 ‐0.75 ‐0.49 ‐0.47 *** ‐0.42 ‐0.53 ‐0.60 ‐0.41 ‐0.56 ‐0.53 ‐0.45 ‐0.55

606DStu54

CHG: Analyzing the basic elements of an idea, experience, or theory, such as examining a particular case or situation in depth and considering its components

‐0.07 ‐0.03 ‐0.16 ‐0.10 ‐0.03 ‐0.09 ‐0.04 ‐0.13 0.01 ‐0.11 ‐0.07 0.03 ‐0.11 *

607DStu55

CHG: Synthesizing and organizing ideas, information, or experiences into new, more complex interpretations and relationships

0.08 0.14 0.01 0.07 0.08 0.05 0.06 0.11 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.13 0.06

608

DStu56CHG: Making judgments about the value of information, arguments, or methods, such as examining how others gathered and interpreted data and assessing the soundness of their conclusions

0.02 0.03 ‐0.08 0.09 0.04 0.21 0.04 ‐0.18 *** 0.05 ‐0.04 0.05 0.13 ‐0.03 *

609 DStu57CHG: Applying theories or concepts to practical problems or in new situations

‐0.20 ‐0.07 ‐0.38 ‐0.29 ‐0.15 *** ‐0.24 ‐0.16 ‐0.25 ‐0.19 ‐0.25 ‐0.16 ‐0.06 ‐0.25 **

610 DStu58 CHG: Integrated ideas or information from various sources 0.12 0.10 0.03 0.20 0.18 * 0.17 0.13 0.07 0.25 0.09 0.10 * 0.18 0.10

611 DStu59CHG: Included diverse perspectives (different races, religions, gender, political beliefs, etc.)

‐0.44 ‐0.50 ‐0.29 ‐0.30 ‐0.55 ** ‐0.76 ‐0.39 ‐0.24 *** ‐0.39 ‐0.49 ‐0.41 ‐0.38 ‐0.46

612 DStu60 CHG: Put together ideas or concepts from different courses ‐0.26 ‐0.23 ‐0.27 ‐0.16 ‐0.33 ‐0.24 ‐0.27 ‐0.28 ‐0.17 ‐0.35 ‐0.22 ‐0.16 ‐0.30 *

613 DStu61CHG: Discussed ideas from your capstone with faculty members other than your capstone advisor

‐0.06 ‐0.04 ‐0.08 ‐0.08 ‐0.05 ‐0.14 0.02 ‐0.09 ‐0.02 0.00 ‐0.12 ‐0.16 ‐0.02 *

614 DStu62CHG: Discussed ideas from your capstone with others (students, family members, co‐workers, etc.)

0.05 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.09 ‐0.03 0.16 0.01 ** 0.19 0.02 0.03 ‐0.03 0.09

615 DStu63CHG: Examined the strengths and weaknesses of your own views on a topic or issue

0.08 0.07 0.11 0.09 0.05 ‐0.06 0.10 0.17 ** 0.18 ‐0.02 0.11 * ‐0.09 0.14 ***

616 DStu64CHG: Tried to better understand someone else’s views by imagining how an issue looks from his or her perspective

‐0.27 ‐0.25 ‐0.12 ‐0.21 ‐0.44 ** ‐0.63 ‐0.17 ‐0.07 *** ‐0.19 ‐0.36 ‐0.22 ‐0.29 ‐0.26

617 DStu65CHG: Learned something that changed the way you understand an issue or concept

‐0.07 ‐0.01 ‐0.03 ‐0.15 ‐0.12 ‐0.15 ‐0.02 ‐0.06 ‐0.07 ‐0.09 ‐0.05 ‐0.09 ‐0.06

618 DStu111 Chg: Highest degree level (1=BA,2=MA,3=JD, 4=Phd) ‐0.04 ‐0.09 ‐0.01 ‐0.10 0.04 ‐0.03 ‐0.03 ‐0.07 ‐0.06 ‐0.06 ‐0.01 0.01 ‐0.06 619 DBach Chg: % highest degree bachelors 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.03 ‐0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.01 ‐0.01 0.03 620 DMasters Chg: % highest degree masters ‐0.01 ‐0.02 ‐0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 ‐0.02 0.02 0.00 ‐0.03 ‐0.01 0.00 ‐0.02 621 DLaw Chg: % highest degree law 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 ‐0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 622 DDoc Chg: % highest degree doc ‐0.01 ‐0.02 0.00 ‐0.04 0.01 ‐0.01 0.00 ‐0.04 ‐0.02 ‐0.01 ‐0.01 0.00 ‐0.01 623 DAdvDeg Chg: % planning advanced degree ‐0.02 ‐0.04 ‐0.02 ‐0.03 0.01 ‐0.01 ‐0.03 ‐0.01 ‐0.02 ‐0.04 ‐0.01 0.01 ‐0.03 624 DGradProfSchl Chg: % planning attend grad/prof school within 1 year ‐0.08 ‐0.16 0.02 ‐0.04 ‐0.04 *** ‐0.11 ‐0.06 ‐0.07 ‐0.11 ‐0.09 ‐0.06 ‐0.13 ‐0.06 *625 DFac1 CHG: Identifies a manageable set of project goals 0.23 0.18 0.38 0.14 0.27 * 0.32 0.22 0.20 0.20 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.22 626 DFac2 CHG: Properly plans tasks to achieve project goals 0.17 0.11 0.29 0.10 0.20 0.25 0.17 0.13 0.11 0.17 0.20 0.22 0.13

627 DFac3 CHG: Demonstrates effective time management in completing tasks 0.11 0.10 0.20 0.05 0.11 0.20 0.14 0.02 0.02 0.17 0.10 0.12 0.10

628 DFac4 CHG: Persists when faced with conceptual and practical difficulties 0.30 0.34 0.31 0.26 0.28 0.31 0.32 0.27 0.37 0.34 0.20 0.32 0.28

629 DFac5 CHG: Shows evidence of independent thinking 0.27 0.34 0.45 0.18 0.20 ** 0.42 0.23 0.23 ** 0.26 0.31 0.22 0.23 0.29 630 DFac6 CHG: Asks probing questions 0.21 0.27 0.48 0.10 0.11 *** 0.39 0.13 0.22 ** 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.22 0.21 631 DFac7 CHG: Actively pursues learning opportunities 0.12 0.10 0.31 0.10 0.05 * 0.16 0.10 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.08 0.11 0.12 632 DFac8 CHG: Demonstrates intellectual curiosity 0.20 0.24 0.45 0.10 0.10 *** 0.29 0.18 0.20 0.26 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.22 633 DFac9 CHG: Shows originality 0.27 0.27 0.51 0.15 0.26 *** 0.41 0.23 0.28 * 0.18 0.31 0.30 0.22 0.31 634 DFac10 CHG: Uses feedback to assess performance 0.23 0.20 0.41 0.30 0.08 ** 0.33 0.26 0.13 * 0.25 0.19 0.25 0.25 0.21

635 DFac11CHG: Demonstrates accurate awareness of own abilities and limitations

0.28 0.27 0.47 0.26 0.21 * 0.43 0.27 0.19 * 0.21 0.30 0.31 0.33 0.25

636 DFac12 CHG: Demonstrates appropriate confidence in own intellectual ability 0.28 0.23 0.48 0.29 0.19 ** 0.39 0.26 0.22 0.22 0.26 0.34 0.27 0.28

Table 4.1 2/22/2012

Part 4, Page: 57


Range values from 1 to ?? ALL R T W Y Sig NS SS+ HUM Sig L M H Sig M F Sig637 DFac13 CHG: Locates appropriate source material 0.21 0.24 0.30 0.13 0.19 0.24 0.14 0.31 * 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.27 0.17

638 DFac14CHG: Logically interprets and evaluates main points of source material

0.27 0.30 0.34 0.24 0.24 0.31 0.27 0.32 0.26 0.30 0.26 0.32 0.25

639 DFac15 CHG: Uses disciplinary knowledge and methods appropriately 0.29 0.27 0.34 0.34 0.24 0.29 0.35 0.29 0.25 0.29 0.31 0.30 0.29

640 DFac16CHG: Synthesizes information to produce insights that expand the student's understanding

0.34 0.42 0.43 0.25 0.30 0.42 0.32 0.33 0.31 0.36 0.33 0.36 0.32

641 DFac17 CHG: Supports arguments with appropriate evidence 0.23 0.20 0.40 0.26 0.12 ** 0.33 0.24 0.14 * 0.14 0.26 0.26 0.21 0.24

642 DFac18 CHG: Addresses opposing arguments or alternative explanations 0.27 0.32 0.38 0.25 0.17 0.44 0.21 0.23 ** 0.20 0.26 0.31 0.28 0.26

643 DFac19 CHG: Develops convincing arguments to support conclusions 0.26 0.33 0.40 0.19 0.20 * 0.38 0.26 0.16 * 0.21 0.26 0.29 0.27 0.25

644 DFac20CHG: Makes connections to other contexts (across courses, disciplines, experiences, etc.)

0.23 0.32 0.37 0.11 0.20 * 0.38 0.22 0.17 * 0.27 0.20 0.24 0.25 0.22

645 DFac21 CHG: Shows skill in quantitative reasoning 0.22 0.25 0.20 0.13 0.32 0.29 0.16 0.25 0.11 0.23 0.29 0.19 0.25

646 DFac22CHG: Writes without distracting errors in spelling grammar, punctuation, usage, etc.

0.09 0.05 0.28 0.04 0.04 * 0.09 0.08 0.16 ‐0.05 0.08 0.18 * 0.12 0.07

647 DFac23 CHG: Writes in a well‐organized manner 0.20 0.23 0.36 0.17 0.11 * 0.21 0.20 0.23 0.11 0.25 0.20 0.23 0.17 648 DFac24 CHG: Writes in a clear, articulate manner 0.17 0.16 0.31 0.15 0.13 0.21 0.17 0.18 0.07 0.20 0.22 0.19 0.16 649 DFac25 CHG: Delivers an effective oral presentation 0.35 0.47 0.48 0.25 0.27 * 0.45 0.37 0.26 0.39 0.29 0.39 0.42 0.31 650 DFac26 CHG: Delivers an effective poster presentation 0.42 0.66 0.76 0.08 0.53 *** 0.43 0.43 0.50 0.69 0.48 0.29 0.60 0.31 *651 gradcolgpagrp graduating college gpa group

652 Capmajdiv capstone primary major by division (excl bus and teacher educ)

653 Capmajdivall capstone primary major by division (excl bus teacher educ)

654 genderN gender(M=1, F=0) 0.40 0.46 0.34 0.37 0.39 *** 41% 40% 38% 0.57 0.37 0.30 *** 1.00 0.00 #N/A

655 NonWhiteAm Non White Am (Y=1, N=0) 0.10 0.14 0.09 0.09 0.08 *** 0.07 0.12 0.09 ** 0.16 0.10 0.06 *** 0.12 0.09 *656 surveystatusgrp survey status groups

657filter_$

Duplicaterecordflag ~= "Y" and Duplicaterecordflag ~= "b" and Duplicaterecordflag ~= "c" and Duplicaterecordflag >= "Ypre" (FILTER)

658 PostFac36Reversed PostFac36 with the responses reversed

659 PreExpectGoodCapstone Student expects capstone experience to be helpful 4.19 4.34 4.15 4.12 4.13 *** 4.23 4.20 4.18 4.19 4.22 4.17 4.14 4.22 **660 PreSatisInstr Satisfaction with instruction 4.42 4.45 4.39 4.36 4.45 * 4.46 4.39 4.45 * 4.29 4.38 4.53 *** 4.36 4.45 **661 PreSatisSuppSrv Satisfaction with academic support services 3.96 4.14 4.18 3.70 3.79 *** 4.07 3.95 3.96 ** 4.00 3.94 3.95 3.92 3.98 662 PreCivicOrient Orientation toward civic engagement 2.85 2.76 2.97 2.85 2.84 *** 2.75 2.91 2.83 *** 2.86 2.86 2.83 2.76 2.89 ***663 PreHighOrderCogn Use of higher order cognitive thinking skills 3.23 3.23 3.27 3.21 3.24 3.24 3.27 3.20 3.14 3.27 3.25 *** 3.18 3.26 **664 PreExhibScholarlySkills During the past year, student exhibited scholarly skills 4.15 4.13 4.17 4.16 4.16 4.12 4.14 4.18 4.00 4.16 4.23 *** 4.12 4.17 *665 PreNeedCognLite Abbreviated version of Need for Cognition 3.90 3.96 3.84 3.97 3.85 *** 3.75 3.85 4.10 *** 3.92 3.91 3.89 4.04 3.84 ***

666PreMultPerspectives2

Using behaviors showing interest in examining ideas from multiple perspectives

3.06 3.01 3.11 3.07 3.06 2.88 3.08 3.15 *** 3.01 3.10 3.04 * 3.00 3.08 **

667 PreProjMgt Exhibiting good project management skills 3.88 3.81 3.93 3.96 3.87 * 3.88 3.91 3.84 3.63 3.90 4.01 *** 3.73 3.96 ***668 PreRatingAcadAbil Self rating of academic ability 3.87 3.87 3.84 3.86 3.89 3.80 3.82 3.98 *** 3.66 3.83 4.01 *** 3.95 3.83 ***669 PreRatingCollabSkills Self rating of group collaboration skills 3.66 3.64 3.63 3.65 3.71 3.60 3.70 3.63 * 3.75 3.65 3.62 * 3.81 3.58 ***

670PreRatingIndepVoice

Self rating of understanding of self/others and ability to think on their own

4.10 4.10 4.07 4.14 4.10 4.03 4.12 4.13 ** 4.13 4.13 4.06 * 4.13 4.09

671 PreRatingStriver Self rating of drive to achieve and persistence 4.04 3.95 4.10 4.03 4.09 ** 4.13 4.06 3.95 *** 3.85 4.00 4.17 *** 4.00 4.06 672 PreResearchOrient Enjoyment of research 3.60 3.71 3.45 3.56 3.62 *** 3.76 3.54 3.53 *** 3.44 3.58 3.71 *** 3.60 3.60

673PreStatusCareerOrient Desire to have a prestigious, high paying, high achieving career 2.64 2.59 2.56 2.79 2.65 *** 2.67 2.68 2.53 *** 2.74 2.66 2.56 *** 2.73 2.59 ***

674 PostPrepBreadthHelpfulness as preparation for the capstone of areas that add educational breadth.

2.35 2.36 2.44 2.34 2.27 ** 2.17 2.41 2.40 *** 2.35 2.35 2.34 2.28 2.38 *

675 PostPrepDiscHelpfulness as preparation for the capstone of areas that are grounded in the disciplinary major of the capstone.

2.88 2.91 2.83 2.73 2.97 *** 2.97 2.87 2.81 *** 2.91 2.87 2.88 2.83 2.91 **

676 PostPrepQuantHelpfulness as preparation for the capstone of quantitative or computer based techniques.

2.43 2.45 2.29 2.39 2.54 ** 2.86 2.48 1.76 *** 2.46 2.50 2.35 * 2.47 2.41

Table 4.1 2/22/2012

Part 4, Page: 58


Range values from 1 to ?? ALL R T W Y Sig NS SS+ HUM Sig L M H Sig M F Sig677 PostMentorRel Helpful and comfortable relationship with the mentor. 4.38 4.46 4.27 4.37 4.40 ** 4.52 4.31 4.37 *** 4.35 4.34 4.43 * 4.38 4.38

678 PostCapContDevRating of the contribution of the capstone to the development of scholarly skills.

4.11 4.14 4.06 4.05 4.15 * 4.21 4.11 4.02 *** 4.08 4.13 4.11 4.07 4.14 *

679PostCapMoreEngaging

Rating of the capstone as more or less intellectually engaging than a regular course.

4.15 4.25 3.98 3.95 4.28 *** 4.18 4.12 4.15 4.21 4.12 4.16 4.15 4.15

680PostCapSuccessful Overall assessment of the capstone as a successful experience. 4.03 4.09 4.05 3.92 4.00 * 4.11 4.02 3.96 * 4.01 4.00 4.07 4.00 4.05

681 PostSatisInstr Satisfaction with instruction. 4.43 4.49 4.36 4.38 4.46 ** 4.48 4.41 4.39 4.30 4.40 4.54 *** 4.38 4.46 *

682 PostSatisSuppSrvSatisfaction with academic support services (library, computer, facilities/equipment supporting their major).

3.91 4.02 4.16 3.64 3.74 *** 4.03 3.91 3.87 ** 3.88 3.89 3.95 3.91 3.91

683 PostCivicOrient Orientation toward civic engagement. 2.86 2.77 2.98 2.88 2.85 *** 2.80 2.90 2.84 ** 2.83 2.85 2.89 2.77 2.90 ***

684PostHighOrderCogn

Use of higher order cognitive thinking skills (analyzing, synthesizing, judgments, applying theories).

3.20 3.23 3.14 3.13 3.25 * 3.25 3.24 3.06 *** 3.20 3.19 3.22 3.23 3.19

685PostExhibScholarlySkills

During the past academic year (pre) or during the capstone (post) the student exhibited scholarly skills.

4.34 4.35 4.29 4.32 4.38 * 4.39 4.31 4.33 * 4.23 4.33 4.41 *** 4.28 4.38 ***

686PostNeedCognLite

An abbreviated version of the Need for Cognition scale designed to measure interest in or enjoyment of higher order cognition.

3.94 3.98 3.88 4.00 3.92 * 3.83 3.90 4.10 *** 3.97 3.94 3.93 4.09 3.87 ***

687PostMultPerspectives2

Using behaviors showing interest in examining ideas from multiple perspectives

2.86 2.84 2.98 2.85 2.78 *** 2.52 2.93 3.03 *** 2.86 2.82 2.89 2.82 2.87

688 PostProjMgt Exhibiting good project management skills. 4.04 4.02 4.06 4.02 4.05 4.11 4.05 3.97 * 3.82 4.04 4.14 *** 3.87 4.12 ***689 PostRatingAcadAbil Student's self rating of his/her academic ability. 3.95 3.95 3.92 3.94 3.97 3.90 3.90 4.04 *** 3.76 3.88 4.11 *** 4.03 3.91 ***690 PostRatingCollabSkills Student's self rating of his/her group collaboration skills. 3.73 3.74 3.69 3.69 3.78 3.66 3.76 3.72 3.79 3.74 3.70 3.91 3.64 ***

691PostRatingIndepVoice

Student's self rating of his/her understanding of themselves and others and ability to think on their own.

4.12 4.12 4.08 4.10 4.16 4.10 4.12 4.12 4.14 4.13 4.10 4.16 4.10 *

692PostResearchOrient Student's self rating of his/her drive to achieve and persistence. 3.76 3.87 3.59 3.76 3.79 *** 3.95 3.74 3.60 *** 3.57 3.74 3.88 *** 3.78 3.76

693 PostRatingStriver Enjoyment of research. 4.09 4.03 4.10 4.04 4.16 ** 4.22 4.07 3.99 *** 3.90 4.04 4.23 *** 4.05 4.11

694PostStatusCareerOrient Desire to have a prestigious, high paying, and high achieving career. 2.61 2.53 2.55 2.74 2.69 *** 2.67 2.62 2.54 ** 2.75 2.61 2.55 *** 2.73 2.56 ***

695 DSatisInstr Chg: Satisfaction with instruction. ‐0.01 0.01 ‐0.07 ‐0.01 ‐0.01 0.00 ‐0.01 ‐0.06 ‐0.01 ‐0.04 0.00 ‐0.03 ‐0.01

696 DSatisSuppSrvChg: Satisfaction with academic support services (library, computer, facilities/equipment supporting their major).

‐0.07 ‐0.11 ‐0.04 ‐0.04 ‐0.05 ‐0.05 ‐0.08 ‐0.08 ‐0.13 ‐0.10 ‐0.02 * ‐0.02 ‐0.09

697 DCivicOrient Chg: Orientation toward civic engagement. 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.07 ‐0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 ‐0.05 ‐0.01 0.05 ** 0.00 0.01

698 DHighOrderCognChg: Use of higher order cognitive thinking skills (analyzing, synthesizing, judgments, applying theories).

‐0.04 0.02 ‐0.15 ‐0.06 ‐0.02 ** ‐0.02 ‐0.02 ‐0.11 ‐0.01 ‐0.08 ‐0.02 0.06 ‐0.08 ***

699DExhibScholarlySkills

Chg: During the past academic year (pre) or during the capstone (post) the student exhibited scholarly skills.

0.19 0.21 0.12 0.17 0.23 * 0.24 0.19 0.16 0.23 0.19 0.18 0.12 0.22 ***

700DNeedCognLite

Chg: An abbreviated version of the Need for Cognition scale designed to measure interest in or enjoyment of higher order cognition.

0.05 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.01 0.07 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05

701DMultPerspectives2

Chg: Using behaviors that exhibit an interest in examining ideas from a multiplicity of perspectives.

‐0.19 ‐0.18 ‐0.12 ‐0.15 ‐0.28 * ‐0.37 ‐0.15 ‐0.10 *** ‐0.13 ‐0.26 ‐0.16 * ‐0.20 ‐0.19

702 DProjMgt Chg: Exhibiting good project management skills. 0.12 0.20 0.09 0.06 0.09 0.18 0.13 0.11 0.14 0.14 0.10 0.08 0.14 703 DRatingAcadAbil Chg: Student's self rating of his/her academic ability. 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.07 0.11 0.08 0.10

704DRatingCollabSkills Chg: Student's self rating of his/her group collaboration skills. 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.01 0.08 0.08 0.05 0.09 0.03 0.07 0.10 0.07 0.08

705DRatingIndepVoice

Chg: Student's self rating of his/her understanding of themselves and others and ability to think on their own.

0.03 0.04 0.03 ‐0.02 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.04 0.03

706 DRatingStriver Chg: Student's self rating of his/her drive to achieve and persistence. 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.07 0.07 0.02 0.05 ‐0.02 0.03 0.08 0.01 0.06

707 DResearchOrient Chg: Enjoyment of research. 0.18 0.19 0.14 0.22 0.16 0.20 0.21 0.12 0.15 0.17 0.19 0.19 0.17

708DStatusCareerOrient

Chg: Desire to have a prestigious, high paying, and high achieving career.

‐0.02 ‐0.06 ‐0.04 0.02 0.01 ‐0.01 ‐0.04 0.00 ‐0.09 ‐0.02 0.01 * ‐0.04 ‐0.01

709 PreCommunSkills Student exhibited good communication skills. 3.80 3.83 3.85 3.82 3.73 3.70 3.81 3.85 * 3.24 3.77 4.18 *** 3.64 3.90 ***710 PreEffProjectMgt Student exhibited good project management skills. 3.80 3.89 3.84 3.84 3.69 *** 3.71 3.84 3.85 ** 3.26 3.80 4.15 *** 3.65 3.90 ***

711PreIntelEngagement Student exhibited good intellectual engagement behaviors. 3.83 3.90 3.85 3.83 3.75 * 3.70 3.81 3.93 *** 3.28 3.80 4.21 *** 3.76 3.87 **

712 PreCrThinkSkills Student exhibited good critical thinking skills. 3.74 3.81 3.79 3.75 3.65 ** 3.68 3.76 3.76 3.22 3.71 4.10 *** 3.65 3.80 ***713 PostCommunSkills Student exhibited good communication skills. 4.02 4.02 4.10 3.99 3.98 4.03 3.95 4.07 3.42 3.97 4.49 *** 3.91 4.08 ***

Table 4.1 2/22/2012

Part 4, Page: 59


Range values from 1 to ?? ALL R T W Y Sig NS SS+ HUM Sig L M H Sig M F Sig714 PostEffProjectMgt Student exhibited good project management skills. 4.03 4.06 4.06 4.02 4.00 4.10 3.97 4.04 * 3.51 4.01 4.42 *** 3.91 4.10 ***

715PostIntelEngagement Student exhibited good intellectual engagement behaviors. 4.02 4.12 4.05 3.99 3.94 ** 4.07 3.95 4.07 * 3.47 3.98 4.46 *** 3.96 4.06 *

716 PostCrThinkSkills Student exhibited good critical thinking skills. 3.98 4.03 4.03 4.00 3.91 4.09 3.93 3.96 ** 3.44 3.95 4.42 *** 3.90 4.04 ***717 PostStudentTopicMotiv Mentor rating of students enthusiasm for the topic 4.17 4.36 4.08 4.02 4.18 *** 4.15 4.07 4.29 *** 3.89 4.15 4.38 *** 4.11 4.20 *718 PostMentorInstruction Mentor's self‐rating of instructional own helpfulness 4.45 4.54 4.34 4.42 4.47 ** 4.41 4.42 4.54 ** 4.38 4.45 4.49 * 4.39 4.48 **719 PostMentorRapport Mentor's self‐rating of good relationship with the student 4.50 4.56 4.46 4.43 4.53 * 4.51 4.44 4.59 ** 4.34 4.49 4.63 *** 4.44 4.53 **720 DCommunSkills Chg: Student exhibited good critical thinking skills. 0.20 0.24 0.33 0.15 0.14 * 0.24 0.20 0.22 0.13 0.21 0.24 0.23 0.18 721 DEffProjectMgt Chg: Student exhibited good project management skills. 0.22 0.21 0.35 0.19 0.19 0.30 0.22 0.19 0.20 0.23 0.23 0.25 0.20

722DIntelEngagement Chg: Student exhibited good intellectual engagement behaviors. 0.21 0.25 0.39 0.14 0.15 *** 0.32 0.19 0.20 * 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.22

723 DCrThinkSkills Chg: Student exhibited good critical thinking skills. 0.25 0.28 0.36 0.24 0.18 0.33 0.26 0.22 0.19 0.26 0.28 0.26 0.24 724 dblmajor double major (0=no, 1=yes) 0.38 0.33 0.57 0.29 0.30 *** 0.21 0.32 0.45 *** 0.17 0.40 0.47 *** 0.38 0.38

Table 4.1 2/22/2012

Part 4, Page: 60

TABLES 4.2 to 4.9: SCALES DERIVED BY FACTOR ANALYSIS These tables list and report values for a set of scales derived from factor analyses of the pre/and post student and mentor surveys. Appendix 4.3 below describes the methodology.

4.2 Summary List of Capstone Survey Scales 4.3 Capstone Survey Scales and Component Items, Reliability Alphas and Loadings 4.4 Scale Inter‐correlations: Pre‐Capstone Student Survey 4.5 Scale Inter‐correlations: Post‐Capstone Student Survey 4.6 Scale Inter‐correlations: Pre‐ to Post‐Capstone Student Surveys 4.7 Scale Inter‐correlations: Pre, Post, and Pre to Post‐Capstone Faculty Surveys 4.8 Scale Inter‐correlations: Post Student with Post Faculty Scales 4.9 Scale Inter‐correlations: Post Mentor Survey Correlations of Scales with Summative Items

Part 4, Page: 61

Table 4.2: Summary List of Capstone Survey Scales

Student Pre‐capstone Only ScaleExpectGoodCapstone Student expects that the capstone experience will help them develop disciplinary knowledge, general

intellectual skills, and prepare for post‐graduate careers or graduate school.Student Pre/Post Satisfaction Scales

SatisInstr Satisfaction with instruction.SatisSuppSrv Satisfaction with academic support services (library, computer, facilities/equipment supporting their major).

Student Pre/Post Outcome ScalesCivicOrient Orientation toward civic engagement.HighOrderCogn Use of higher order cognitive thinking skills (analyzing, synthesizing, judgments, applying theories).

ExhibScholarlySkills During the past academic year (pre) or during the capstone (post) the student exhibited scholarly skills, including critical thinking, disciplinary knowledge and methods, communication skills, indepence and persistence.

NeedCognLite An abbreviated version of the Need for Cognition scale designed to measure interest in or enjoyment of higher order cognition.

MultPerspectives Using behaviors that exhibit an interest in examining ideas from a multiplicity of perspectives, including understanding the views of others, diversity perspectives, the strengths/weaknesses of one's own views, and integration of ideas from different courses.

ProjMgt Exhibiting good project management skills, including planning, goal setting, and time management.

RatingAcadAbil Student's self rating of his/her academic ability, including critical thinking, writing, creativity, and general acabemic ability and self‐confidence.

RatingLeadCollabSkills Student's self rating of his/her group leadership/collaboration skills, including public speaking, leadership and social self‐confidence.

RatingIndepVoice Student's self rating of his/her understanding of themselves and others and ability to think on their own.

RatingStriver Student's self rating of his/her drive to achieve and persistence.ResearchOrient Enjoyment of research and self‐rating of research skills.StatusCareerOrient Desire to have a prestigious, high paying, and high achieving career.

Student Post‐Capstone Only ScalesPrepBreadth Helpfulness as preparation for the capstone of areas that add educational breadth.PrepDisc Helpfulness as preparation for the capstone of areas that are grounded in the disciplinary major of the

capstone.PrepQuant Helpfulness as preparation for the capstone of quantitative or computer based techniques.MentorRel Helpful and comfortable relationship with the mentor.CapContDev Rating of the contribution of the capstone to the development of scholarly skills.

CapMoreEngaging Rating of the capstone as more or less intellectually engaging than a regular course.CapSuccessful Overall assessment of the capstone as a successful experience.StuRatingMentorRel Student's rating of the mentor relationship for helpfulness.

Faculty Survey Pre/Post ScalesCommunSkills Student exhibited good communication skills.EffProjectMgt Student exhibited good project management skills.IntelEngagement Student exhibited good intellectual engagement behaviors.CrThinkSkills Student exhibited good critical thinking skills.

summative Individual items rating the students performance in research skill areas.Faculty Post Scales

StudentTopicMotiv Mentor's rating of the students enthusiasm for the capstone topicMentorTopicInfluence Mentor's rating of their influence, vs. the student's, on the selection and honing of the capstone topic.

MentorInstruction Mentor's rating of the usefulness of their feedback, advice, and expertise.MentorRapport Mentor's rating of their rapport in working with the student: comfort, good communications, reasonable

expectations, student's independenceMentorTime Average hours/week relating to this capstone.

The scales below were developed based on factor analysis of the data from the pre‐ and post‐capstone surveys for 2009/10 and 2010/11. The names given to the scales are intended to capture the underlying factor causing the variation in the responses to the questions included in the scale.

1 5/27/2012 Table 4.2

Part 4, Page: 62

Table 4.3: Capstone Survey Scales and Component Items, Reliability Alphas and Loadings(Based on the combined data from 2009/10 and 2010/11.)

LineScale Alpha

Scale name

Item response range, 1

to:

SPSS Variable

factor loading or scale corr

[2]

Survey Question Text

PRE STUDENT1 0.880 ExpectGoodCapstone 5 PreStu73 0.769 My capstone will lead to a better understanding of my skills, abilities and interests

2 5 PreStu70 0.750 My ability to think critically and analytically will improve

3 5 PreStu75 0.737 My capstone will better prepare me for a job or graduate school

4 5 PreStu74 0.724 My capstone will help me clarify my career or graduate school objectives

5 5 PreStu71 0.712 My understanding of my discipline will improve

6 5 PreStu69 0.710 My oral presentation skills will improve

7 5 PreStu68 0.701 My writing skills will improve

8 5 PreStu72 0.664 I expect to create new knowledge in my discipline

9 5 PreStu67 0.654 My capstone will be more engaging than my regular course work

10 5 PreStu66 0.593 My capstone will be intellectually challenging

11 The scales in this section have parallel scales on the Post‐Capstone Student Survey12 0.736 SatisInstr 5 PreStu51 0.817 Quality of instruction in my major field

13 5 PreStu50 0.782 Overall quality of instruction

14 5 PreStu52 0.622 Overall college experience

15 0.690 SatisSuppSrv 5 PreStu48 0.816 Computer facilities and services

16 5 PreStu47 0.765 Library facilities and services

17 5 PreStu49 0.634 Facilities/equipment in my major field

18 0.755 CivicOrient 4 PreStu4 0.746 Helping others who are in difficulty

19 4 PreStu9 0.745 Volunteering in my community

20 4 PreStu7 0.644 Becoming a community leader

21 4 PreStu2 0.612 Influencing social values

22 4 PreStu8 0.603 Integrating spirituality into my life

23 4 PreStu6 0.442 Developing a meaningful philosophy of life

240.721 HighOrderCogn 4 PreStu54 0.700 Analyzing the basic elements of an idea, experience, or theory, such as examining a particular case or

situation in depth and considering its components

254 PreStu55 0.689 Synthesizing and organizing ideas, information, or experiences into new, more complex interpretations

and relationships

26

4 PreStu56 0.670 Making judgments about the value of information, arguments, or methods, such as examining how others gathered and interpreted data and assessing the soundness of their conclusions

27 4 PreStu57 0.647 Applying theories or concepts to practical problems or in new situations

28 0.854 ExhibScholarlySkills 5 PreStu40 0.760 I located appropriate source material

29 5 PreStu41 0.732 I used disciplinary knowledge and methods appropriately

30 5 PreStu43 0.668 I supported my arguments with appropriate evidence

31 5 PreStu42 0.605 I synthesized information to produce insights that expanded my understanding

32 5 PreStu39 0.604 I used feedback to assess my performance

33 5 PreStu36 0.526 I showed evidence of independent thinking

34 5 PreStu44 0.505 I demonstrated good communication skills

35 5 PreStu37 0.489 I persisted when faced with conceptual and practical difficulties

36 5 PreStu38 0.433 I showed originality

37 4 [1] PreStu58 0.420 Integrated ideas or information from various sources

38 5 PreStu46 0.313 I showed skill with quantitative reasoning

39 0.679 NeedCognLite 5 PreStu17 0.729 The notion of thinking abstractly is appealing to me

40 4 [1] PreStu5 0.685 Creating original works

41 5 PreStu16 0.674 I really enjoy a task that involves coming up with new solutions to problems

42 5 PreStu14 0.627 I enjoy expressing my ideas in writing

43 5 PreStu15 0.602 I have confidence in my opinions, even if they are contrary to the general consensus

440.759 MultPerspectives 4 PreStu64 0.734 Tried to better understand someone else’s views by imagining how an issue looks from his or her

perspective45 4 PreStu63 0.661 Examined the strengths and weaknesses of your own views on a topic or issue

464 PreStu59 0.644 Included diverse perspectives (different races, religions, gender, political beliefs, etc.)

47 4 PreStu65 0.630 Learned something that changed the way you understand an issue or concept

48 4 PreStu60 0.590 Put together ideas or concepts from different courses

49 0.000 This scale revised 11/27/10 to remove two items relating to discussing ideas with others.

50 0.807 ProjMgt 5 PreStu35 0.824 I properly planned tasks to achieve project goals

51 5 PreStu45 0.783 I demonstrated effective time management in completing tasks

52 5 PreStu34 0.728 I identified manageable sets of goals for my projects

The scales below were developed based on factor analysis of the data from the pre‐ and post‐capstone surveys. The names given to the scales are intended to capture the underlying factor causing the variation in the responses to the questions included in the scale. The scale values used for analysis are the averages of the values of the component questions [1]. Several scales are replicated for both the pre and post surveys using items that correspond on the two surveys.

2 2/22/2012 Table 4.3

Part 4, Page: 63

LineScale Alpha

Scale name


to:

SPSS Variable


[2]


53 0.704 RatingAcadAbil 5 PreStu26 0.722 Self‐confidence (intellectual)

54 5 PreStu30 0.722 Ability to think critically

55 5 PreStu33 0.692 Writing ability

56 5 PreStu19 0.691 Academic ability

57 5 PreStu20 0.571 Creativity

58 0.706 RatingLeadCollabSkills 5 PreStu25 0.743 Public speaking ability

59 5 PreStu22 0.707 Leadership ability

60 5 PreStu27 0.605 Self‐confidence (social)

61 0.605 RatingIndepVoice 5 PreStu29 0.758 Self‐understanding

62 5 PreStu28 0.705 Understanding of others

63 5 PreStu32 0.371 Ability to think and act on my own

64 0.701 RatingStriver 5 PreStu21 0.522 Drive to achieve

65 5 PreStu24 0.488 Persistence

66 0.692 ResearchOrient 5 PreStu18 0.702 I enjoy doing research

67 5 PreStu31 0.607 Research skills

68 0.714 StatusCareerOrient 4 PreStu11 0.823 Working in a prestigious occupation

69 4 PreStu10 0.734 Making a lot of money

70 4 PreStu13 0.728 Obtaining recognition from my colleagues for contributions to my special field

71 4 PreStu1 0.473 Becoming accomplished in my field of expertise

72 5 PreStu76 I expect to be comfortable working with my faculty mentor(s)

73 independent items 5 PreStu77 My capstone will be very stressful

74 4 PreStu53 Memorizing facts, ideas, or methods so you can repeat them in pretty much the same form

75 4 PreStu12 Becoming passionate about or committed to my occupation

76 4 PreStu3 Raising a family

77 5 PreStu23 Mathematical ability

78 POST STUDENT79 0.761 PrepBreadth 4 PostStu43 0.781 Volunteer experiences

80 4 PostStu41 0.715 Study abroad experiences

81 4 PostStu44 0.694 My non‐academic interests/experiences

82 4 PostStu42 0.631 My job or internship experiences

83 4 PostStu34 0.503 Courses outside my major(s) and minor(s)

84 0.576 PrepDisc 4 PostStu37 0.700 A junior or senior seminar

85 4 PostStu36 0.627 A research methods or skills course

86 4 PostStu35 0.529 Courses in my major(s) or minors(s)

87 4 PostStu38 0.367 Assistance from librarians or use of library services

88 0.799 PrepQuant 4 PostStu39 0.825 Training in quantitative methods (statistics, tables, graphs, mathematical modeling,…)

894 PostStu40 0.802 Training or experience with computer techniques (spreadsheets, Internet, programming, presentation

software…)90 0.959 MentorRel 5 PostStu82 0.878 My mentor gave me helpful advice

91 5 PostStu221 0.876 My mentor gave me sufficient feedback

92 5 PostStu217 0.867 My mentor gave me useful feedback

93 5 PostStu222 0.864 My mentor effectively guided me through the capstone

94 5 PostStu219 0.837 My mentor and I communicated well

95 5 PostStu83 0.820 I was comfortable working with my faculty mentor

96 5 PostStu81 0.805 I had access to my mentor when I needed it

97 5 PostStu224 0.786 My mentor gave me timely feedback

98 5 PostStu223 0.778 My mentor provided helpful subject matter expertise

99 5 PostStu220 0.767 My mentor had reasonable expectations for my performance

100 5 PostStu218 0.752 My mentor met with me regularly

101 5 PostStu80 0.725 My mentor was genuinely interested in my project

102 5 PostStu216 0.687 My mentor encouraged my independence

103 5 PostStu225 0.633 My mentor was experienced in capstone advising

104 0.897 CapContDev 5 PostStu94 0.818 Ability to think critically and analytically

105 5 PostStu93 0.770 Ability to write effectively

106 5 PostStu89 0.758 Skill in the interpreting of data, evidence, texts, and/or works

107 5 PostStu88 0.753 Having confidence in my own abilities

108 5 PostStu85 0.731 Learning effectively on my own

109 5 PostStu86 0.719 Acquiring research related skills

110 5 PostStu87 0.712 Managing a large project

111 5 PostStu91 0.697 Ability to interpret primary literature

112 5 PostStu95 0.667 Ability to think creatively

113 5 PostStu92 0.655 Ability to make an effective oral presentation

3 2/22/2012 Table 4.3

Part 4, Page: 64

LineScale Alpha

Scale name


to:

SPSS Variable


[2]


114 5 PostStu90 0.626 Learning ethical conduct in my field

115 0.814 CapMoreEngaging 5 PostStu99 0.806 I worked harder on my capstone than on my regular coursework

116 5 PostStu100 0.804 My capstone was more intellectually challenging than my regular coursework

117 5 PostStu101 0.649 I developed more academically from my capstone than from a regular course

118 0.902 CapSuccessful 5 PostStu107 0.837 My capstone had a positive influence on my intellectual growth and interest in ideas

119 5 PostStu108 0.796 My capstone had a positive influence on my personal growth, attitudes, and values

120 5 PostStu104 0.790 My capstone has led me to a better understanding of my skills, abilities and interests

121 5 PostStu106 0.790 My capstone has better prepared me for a job or graduate school

122 5 PostStu105 0.766 My capstone has helped me clarify my career or graduate school objectives

123 5 PostStu102 0.751 Understanding of my discipline improved

124 5 PostStu110 0.739 Overall, I had a good capstone experience

125 5 PostStu97 0.665 My capstone was more engaging than my regular coursework

126 5 PostStu103 0.640 I created new knowledge in my discipline

127 5 PostStu84 0.640 Seeing the connection between my intended career and how it affects society

128 The scales in this section have parallel scales on the Pre‐Capstone Student Survey129 0.791 SatisInstr 5 PostStu50 0.829 Quality of instruction in my major field

130 5 PostStu49 0.826 Overall quality of instruction

131 5 PostStu51 0.693 Overall college experience

132 0.681 SatisSuppSrv 5 PostStu47 0.829 Computer facilities and services

133 5 PostStu46 0.743 Library facilities and services

134 5 PostStu48 0.630 Facilities/equipment in my major field

135 0.772 CivicOrient 4 PostStu9 0.765 Volunteering in my community

136 4 PostStu4 0.754 Helping others who are in difficulty

137 4 PostStu7 0.672 Becoming a community leader

138 4 PostStu8 0.633 Integrating spirituality into my life

139 4 PostStu2 0.614 Influencing social values

140 4 PostStu6 0.470 Developing a meaningful philosophy of life

141

0.712 HighOrderCogn 4 PostStu57 0.742 Making judgments about the value of information, arguments, or methods, such as examining how others gathered and interpreted data and assessing the soundness of their conclusions

142 4 PostStu58 0.738 Applying theories or concepts to practical problems or in new situations

1434 PostStu56 0.732 Synthesizing and organizing ideas, information, or experiences into new, more complex interpretations

and relationships

1444 PostStu55 0.723 Analyzing the basic elements of an idea, experience, or theory, such as examining a particular case or

situation in depth and considering its components145 0.874 ExhibScholarlySkills 5 PostStu76 0.764 I supported my arguments with appropriate evidence

146 5 PostStu73 0.761 I located appropriate source material

147 5 PostStu74 0.718 I used disciplinary knowledge and methods appropriately

148 5 PostStu75 0.715 I synthesized information to produce insights that expanded my understanding

149 5 PostStu69 0.645 I showed evidence of independent thinking

150 5 PostStu70 0.600 I persisted when faced with conceptual and practical difficulties

151 5 PostStu77 0.586 I demonstrated good communication skills

152 5 PostStu72 0.554 I used feedback to assess my performance

153 5 PostStu71 0.495 I showed originality

154 5 PostStu79 0.414 I showed skill with quantitative reasoning

155 4 [1] PostStu59 0.333 Integrated ideas or information from various sources

156 0.702 NeedCognLite 5 PostStu17 0.739 The notion of thinking abstractly is appealing to me

157 4 [1] PostStu5 0.688 Creating original works

158 5 PostStu16 0.678 I really enjoy a task that involves coming up with new solutions to problems

159 5 PostStu14 0.659 I enjoy expressing my ideas in writing

160 5 PostStu15 0.617 I have confidence in my opinions, even if they are contrary to the general consensus

1610.751 MultPerspectives 4 PostStu65 0.784 Tried to better understand someone else’s views by imagining how an issue looks from his or her

perspective

162 4 PostStu60 0.711 Included diverse perspectives (different races, religions, gender, political beliefs, etc.)

163 4 PostStu64 0.676 Examined the strengths and weaknesses of your own views on a topic or issue

164 4 PostStu66 0.582 Learned something that changed the way you understand an issue or concept

165 4 PostStu61 0.492 Put together ideas or concepts from different courses

166 0.809 ProjMgt 5 PostStu68 0.794 I properly planned tasks to achieve project goals

167 5 PostStu78 0.748 I demonstrated effective time management in completing tasks

168 5 PostStu67 0.693 I identified a manageable set of project goals

169 0.723 RatingAcadAbil 5 PostStu26 0.727 Self‐confidence (intellectual)

170 5 PostStu30 0.727 Ability to think critically

171 5 PostStu33 0.726 Writing ability

172 5 PostStu19 0.706 Academic ability

4 2/22/2012 Table 4.3

Part 4, Page: 65

LineScale Alpha

Scale name


to:

SPSS Variable


[2]


173 5 PostStu20 0.570 Creativity

174 0.704 RatingCollabSkills 5 PostStu25 0.751 Public speaking ability

175 5 PostStu22 0.728 Leadership ability

176 5 PostStu27 0.595 Self‐confidence (social)

177 0.632 RatingIndepVoice 5 PostStu29 0.768 Self‐understanding

178 5 PostStu28 0.700 Understanding of others

179 5 PostStu32 0.399 Ability to think and act on my own

180 0.684 RatingStriver 5 PostStu21 0.433 Drive to achieve

181 5 PostStu24 0.332 Persistence

182 0.710 ResearchOrient 5 PostStu31 0.696 Research skills

183 5 PostStu18 0.651 I enjoy doing research

184 0.723 StatusCareerOrient 4 PostStu11 0.838 Working in a prestigious occupation

185 4 PostStu10 0.753 Making a lot of money

186 4 PostStu13 0.728 Obtaining recognition from my colleagues for contributions to my special field

187 4 PostStu1 0.489 Becoming accomplished in my field of expertise

188 4 PostStu12 Becoming passionate about or committed to my occupation

189 5 PostStu109 My capstone product (e.g. thesis, paper, art work) was of high quality

190 5 PostStu98 My capstone was more stressful than my regular coursework

191 independent items 4 PostStu54 Memorizing facts, ideas, or methods so you can repeat them in pretty much the same form

192 ‐ PostStu52 On average, how many hours per week did you spend interacting with your capstone mentor in

individual or group meetings relating to the capstone?

193 ‐ PostStu53 On average, how many hours per week did you spend working on ALL aspects of your capstone

combined?194 4 PostStu3 Raising a family

195 5 PostStu96 Ability to reason quantitatively

196 5 PostStu23 Mathematical ability

197 PRE FACULTY

198 0.917 CommunSkills 5 PreFac24 0.936 Writes in a clear, articulate manner

199 5 PreFac23 0.928 Writes in a well‐organized manner

200 5 PreFac22 0.897 Writes without distracting errors in spelling grammar, punctuation, usage, etc.

201 5 PreFac26 0.800 Delivers an effective poster presentation

202 5 PreFac25 0.768 Delivers an effective oral presentation

203 0.93 EffProjectMgt 5 PreFac3 0.802 Demonstrates effective time management in completing tasks

204 5 PreFac2 0.795 Properly plans tasks to achieve project goals

205 5 PreFac1 0.737 Identifies a manageable set of project goals

206 5 PreFac10 0.659 Uses feedback to assess performance

207 5 PreFac11 0.648 Demonstrates accurate awareness of own abilities and limitations

208 5 PreFac4 0.635 Persists when faced with conceptual and practical difficulties

209 5 PreFac13 0.551 Locates appropriate source material

210 5 PreFac12 0.524 Demonstrates appropriate confidence in own intellectual ability

211 0.941 IntelEngagement 5 PreFac6 0.802 Asks probing questions

212 5 PreFac9 0.802 Shows originality

213 5 PreFac8 0.794 Demonstrates intellectual curiosity

214 5 PreFac5 0.784 Shows evidence of independent thinking

215 5 PreFac20 0.666 Makes connections to other contexts (across courses, disciplines, experiences, etc.)

216 5 PreFac7 0.662 Actively pursues learning opportunities

217 5 PreFac16 0.603 Synthesizes information to produce insights that expand the student's understanding

218 0.933 CrThinkSkills 5 PreFac19 0.911 Develops convincing arguments to support conclusions

219 5 PreFac14 0.893 Logically interprets and evaluates main points of source material

220 5 PreFac17 0.888 Supports arguments with appropriate evidence

221 5 PreFac15 0.878 Uses disciplinary knowledge and methods appropriately

222 5 PreFac18 0.870 Addresses opposing arguments or alternative explanations

223 independent item 5 PreFac21 Shows skill in quantitative reasoning

5 2/22/2012 Table 4.3

Part 4, Page: 66

LineScale Alpha

Scale name


to:

SPSS Variable


[2]


224 POST FACULTY

225 The following scales are from question repeated from the Pre‐Capstone survey.226 0.917 CommunSkills 5 PostFac24 0.938 Writes in a clear, articulate manner

227 5 PostFac23 0.928 Writes in a well‐organized manner

228 5 PostFac22 0.917 Writes without distracting errors in spelling grammar, punctuation, usage, etc.

229 5 PostFac26 0.791 Delivers an effective poster presentation

230 5 PostFac25 0.753 Delivers an effective oral presentation

231 0.939 EffProjectMgt 5 PostFac3 0.829 Demonstrates effective time management in completing tasks

232 5 PostFac2 0.818 Properly plans tasks to achieve project goals

233 5 PostFac1 0.715 Identifies a manageable set of project goals

234 5 PostFac11 0.639 Demonstrates accurate awareness of own abilities and limitations

235 5 PostFac10 0.595 Uses feedback to assess performance

236 5 PostFac4 0.594 Persists when faced with conceptual and practical difficulties

237 5 PostFac12 0.586 Demonstrates appropriate confidence in own intellectual ability

238 5 PostFac13 0.582 Locates appropriate source material

239 0.951 IntelEngagement 5 PostFac6 0.911 Asks probing questions

240 5 PostFac8 0.903 Demonstrates intellectual curiosity

241 5 PostFac5 0.899 Shows evidence of independent thinking

242 5 PostFac7 0.891 Actively pursues learning opportunities

243 5 PostFac9 0.872 Shows originality

244 5 PostFac16 0.869 Synthesizes information to produce insights that expand the student's understanding

245 5 PostFac20 0.816 Makes connections to other contexts (across courses, disciplines, experiences, etc.)

246 0.943 CrThinkSkills 5 PostFac19 0.923 Develops convincing arguments to support conclusions

247 5 PostFac17 0.918 Supports arguments with appropriate evidence

248 5 PostFac14 0.908 Logically interprets and evaluates main points of source material

249 5 PostFac15 0.901 Uses disciplinary knowledge and methods appropriately

250 5 PostFac18 0.873 Addresses opposing arguments or alternative explanations

251 The following scales are from questions only on the Post‐Capstone survey for faculty.252 0.761 StudentTopicMotiv 5 PostFac40 0.842 When the project ended, how enthusiastic was the student about the topic?

253 5 PostFac39 0.832 When the project started, how enthusiastic was the student about the topic?

254 5 PostFac38 0.757 To what extent did the student participate in developing / refining his /her capstone topic?

255 0.883 MentorInstruction 5 PostFac211 0.888 I gave useful feedback to this student

256 5 PostFac207 0.857 I gave this student useful feedback

257 5 PostFac214 0.775 I gave timely feedback to this student

258 5 PostFac204 0.775 I gave this student useful advice

259 5 PostFac212 0.660 I effectively guided the student through the capstone

260 5 PostFac203 0.590 I gave this student sufficient access

261 5 PostFac213 0.543 I provided helpful subject matter expertise for this student's project

262 5 PostFac208 0.519 I met with this student regularly

263 0.851 MentorRapport 5 PostFac205 0.846 I felt comfortable working with this student

264 5 PostFac215 0.768 Overall, I felt comfortable supervising this capstone

265 5 PostFac202 0.643 I was interested in this student's project

266 5 PostFac209 0.614 I communicated well with this student

267 5 PostFac210 0.562 I had reasonable expectations for the student’s capstone performance

268 5 PostFac206 0.560 I encouraged this student to work independently

269 mentor hours PostFac34 Estimate the average hours per week you spent meeting (individually or in a group setting) with this

student as mentor:

270 PostFac34 Estimate the average total hours per week you spent working on this student's capstone (meetings,

email, reading drafts, etc.):

271 topic involvement 5 PostFac37 To what extent did you participate in developing/refining the topic for his / her capstone?

272 5 PostFac36 What was the origin of the idea for your capstone topic?

273 5 PostFac27 Independence: Showing autonomy and initiative in thought and actions

274 Summative Ratings 5 PostFac28 Intellectual Engagement: Demonstrating an interest in learning

275 of student performance 5 PostFac29 Self‐understanding: Developing an awareness of self (skills, abilities, interests)

276 5 PostFac30 Project Management: Conceiving and managing a project

277 5 PostFac31 Research: Investigating in a manner appropriate to the discipline278 5 PostFac32 Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Evaluating and constructing arguments with evidence

279 5 PostFac33 Communication: Presenting ideas effectively (written, oral, and other forms)

280 independent other 5 PostFac21 Shows skill in quantitative reasoning

[1] In the few cases where a question with a 4 point scale was combined with items using a 5‐point scale (Pre/PostStu5, PreStu39, PostStu79), the 4‐point response was converted pro‐rata to a 5‐point basis to preserve the predominant 5‐point scaling.

[2] The purpose of this column is to give an indication of the relative importance of each sub‐item to the overall scale. Where the general factorization of the items produced exactly the scale indicated, the factor loadings have been utilized. Where adjustments to the scale, as for simplification purposes, resulted in a scale not exactly matching a factor, the correlations of each item with the scale values have been utilized. The items in each scale are sorted in descending order by these values.

6 2/22/2012 Table 4.3

Part 4, Page: 67

Table 4.4: Scale Inter‐Correlations ‐ Pre‐Student SurveyCorrelations Larger cell values correspond with darker shading

PreExpectGoodCapstone

PreSatisInstr

PreSatisSuppSrv

PreCivicOrient

PreHighOrderCogn

PreExhibScholarlySkills

PreNeedCognLite

PreMultPerspectives

PreProjMgt

PreRatingAcadAbil

PreRatingLeadCollabSkills

PreRatingIndepVoice

PreRatingStriver

PreResearchOrient

PreStatusCareerOrient

PreExpectGoodCapstone 0.30 0.30 0.24 0.34 0.37 0.28 0.33 0.25 0.13 0.15 0.16 0.21 0.31 0.21

PreSatisInstr 0.30 0.42 0.08 0.29 0.27 0.11 0.20 0.17 0.15 0.10 0.09 0.14 0.20 0.01

PreSatisSuppSrv 0.30 0.42 0.11 0.18 0.14 0.07 0.11 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.00

PreCivicOrient 0.24 0.08 0.11 0.23 0.26 0.24 0.35 0.24 0.10 0.31 0.29 0.29 0.06 0.12

PreHighOrderCogn 0.34 0.29 0.18 0.23 0.43 0.25 0.42 0.23 0.20 0.16 0.19 0.23 0.24 0.12

PreExhibScholarlySkills 0.37 0.27 0.14 0.26 0.43 0.42 0.45 0.51 0.48 0.30 0.35 0.41 0.42 0.18

PreNeedCognLite 0.28 0.11 0.07 0.24 0.25 0.42 0.39 0.10 0.48 0.24 0.30 0.15 0.32 0.18

PreMultPerspectives2 0.33 0.20 0.11 0.35 0.42 0.45 0.39 0.21 0.26 0.20 0.28 0.18 0.23 0.06

PreProjMgt 0.25 0.17 0.10 0.24 0.23 0.51 0.10 0.21 0.19 0.21 0.20 0.46 0.26 0.18

PreRatingAcadAbil 0.13 0.15 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.48 0.48 0.26 0.19 0.36 0.43 0.32 0.36 0.17

PreRatingLeadCollabSkills 0.15 0.10 0.02 0.31 0.16 0.30 0.24 0.20 0.21 0.36 0.41 0.38 0.10 0.27

PreRatingIndepVoice 0.16 0.09 0.04 0.29 0.19 0.35 0.30 0.28 0.20 0.43 0.41 0.29 0.17 0.13

PreRatingStriver 0.21 0.14 0.06 0.29 0.23 0.41 0.15 0.18 0.46 0.32 0.38 0.29 0.27 0.27

PreResearchOrient 0.31 0.20 0.10 0.06 0.24 0.42 0.32 0.23 0.26 0.36 0.10 0.17 0.27 0.18

PreStatusCareerOrient 0.21 0.01 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.18 0.18 0.06 0.18 0.17 0.27 0.13 0.27 0.18

Notes:The highest correlates of expecting to have a good capstone experience are feeling one has exhibited scholarly skills, and used higher order cognition and multiple perspectives in prior work. Also important are having a higher research orientation and being satisfied with instruction and support services. That is, a combination of having an interest in research, having exhibited the types of scholarly activities expected to be needed for a capstone, having confidence in their abilities, and feeling good about faculty and other support. The student’s rating of their academic ability has a surprisingly low correlation (0.13), although it is still positive, and, given the great importance on project management that emerges in the post‐capstone surveys, the somewhat lower correlation with PreProjMgt, 0.25, may indicate that students go into the capstone undervaluing this skill. Also low are PreRatingIndepVoice (0.16) and PreRatingStriver (0.21). Students may not have developed these “skills” yet or may not fully appreciate the role they will play in their capstone.

7 5/27/2012 Table 4.4Part 4, Page: 68

Table 4.5: Scale Inter‐Correlations ‐ Post Student SurveyThese correlations may help answer our questions about what makes a successful capstone.

Post‐Student Survey Scale Inter‐Correlations Data based on all capstones with a post‐capstone student survey.Correlations

PostMentorRel

PostCapContDev

PostCapMoreEnga

ging

PostCapSuccessf

ulPostSatisI

nstrPostSatisSuppSrv

PostCivicOrient

PostExhibScholarlySkills

PostNeedCognLite

PostMultPerspective

s2PostProjM

gt

PostRatingLeadCollabSkills

PostRatingIndepVo

ice

PostResearchOrien

t

PostPrepBreadth .11 .27 .09 .31 .16 .11 .37 .16 .21 .38 .11 .14 .17 .11PostPrepDisc .24 .43 .27 .33 .32 .26 .21 .29 .12 .17 .17 .07 .13 .22PostPrepQuant .10 .22 .09 .16 .09 .11 .10 .14 .00 -.06 .15 .06 .07 .13PostMentorRel .37 .23 .41 .44 .23 .05 .34 .09 .10 .32 .06 .07 .15PostCapContDev .37 .47 .70 .38 .24 .28 .60 .28 .41 .39 .19 .23 .35PostCapMoreEngaging .23 .47 .58 .23 .07 .10 .38 .16 .28 .23 .07 .09 .18PostCapSuccessful .41 .70 .58 .39 .19 .26 .51 .29 .40 .42 .17 .18 .33PostSatisInstr .44 .38 .23 .39 .36 .15 .34 .13 .18 .25 .12 .09 .19PostSatisSuppSrv .23 .24 .07 .19 .36 .14 .16 .05 .10 .12 .01 .06 .05PostCivicOrient .05 .28 .10 .26 .15 .14 .21 .26 .33 .20 .28 .30 .10PostHighOrderCogn .20 .51 .32 .42 .22 .13 .23 .43 .26 .38 .21 .14 .19 .31PostExhibScholarlySkills .34 .60 .38 .51 .34 .16 .21 .32 .41 .54 .22 .29 .35PostNeedCognLite .09 .28 .16 .29 .13 .05 .26 .32 .34 .12 .25 .32 .36PostMultPerspectives2 .10 .41 .28 .40 .18 .10 .33 .41 .34 .18 .18 .22 .16PostProjMgt .32 .39 .23 .42 .25 .12 .20 .54 .12 .18 .16 .17 .20PostRatingAcadAbil .06 .21 .07 .16 .14 .00 .13 .32 .51 .22 .13 .40 .47 .37PostRatingLeadCollabSkills .06 .19 .07 .17 .12 .01 .28 .22 .25 .18 .16 .46 .10PostRatingIndepVoice .07 .23 .09 .18 .09 .06 .30 .29 .32 .22 .17 .46 .19PostResearchOrient .15 .35 .18 .33 .19 .05 .10 .35 .36 .16 .20 .10 .19PostRatingStriver .12 .29 .13 .27 .21 .04 .29 .35 .21 .15 .39 .39 .37 .27PostStatusCareerOrient .11 .21 .12 .21 .05 -.03 .13 .17 .23 .05 .18 .22 .12 .16

Notes:

A perception that the capstone experience was successful is correlated most highly with the capstone contributing to the student’s development, feeling that the capstone was more engaging than a regular course, and using scholarly skills. Perceptions about preparation are positively but more modestly correlated with preparation in the discipline and preparation breadth at .327 and .313, respectively. Quantitative preparation is a much weaker correlate, .163, although one expects this would be higher for capstones in the natural and social science. The correlation of PostCapSuccessful with the mentor relationship, .415, shows this is important, but while it is above the correlations with the preparation scales, it is, perhaps surprisingly, only on a par with project management, .421, and using higher order cognition, .417. Consistent with the pre-capstone correlations, PostRatingAcadAbil (.164), PostRatingIndepVoice (0.180) and PostRatingStriver (0.270) have low correlations with PostCapSuccessful.

The correlations with PostCapSuccessful and PostCapContDev have been bolded since these are arguably the two most important outcome scales. Of note is that these two scales are the most highly correlated of the scales, with r=0.699. PostCapContDev incorporates eleven items covering skills, knowledge, and dispositional traits that are characteristically requirements of the great majority of types of capstones (disciplines in the performing arts being an example of the exception). While PostCapContDev is largely about development as a result of the capstone, PostCapSuccessful is more forward looking, linking the growth experienced during the capstone with the student’s future.

8 5/27/2012 Table 4.5 Part 4, Page: 69

Table 4.6: Scale Inter‐Correlations ‐ Pre‐ to Post‐Student Surveys

Correlations Post‐Capstone Survey Scales

PostPrepBreadth

PostPrepDisc

PostPrepQuant

PostMentorRel

PostCapContDev

PostCapMoreEngaging

PostCapSuccessful

PostSatisInstr

PostSatisSuppSrv

PostCivicOrient

PostHighOrderCogn

PostExhibScholarlySkil

ls

PreExpectGoodCapstone 0.25 0.30 0.12 0.18 0.48 0.39 0.52 0.27 0.15 0.15 0.27 0.33PreSatisInstr 0.10 0.24 0.04 0.24 0.25 0.12 0.23 0.58 0.25 0.06 0.14 0.24PreSatisSuppSrv 0.09 0.19 0.07 0.19 0.18 0.05 0.18 0.25 0.51 0.07 0.05 0.12PreCivicOrient 0.31 0.16 0.07 0.06 0.26 0.12 0.25 0.09 0.10 0.72 0.17 0.16PreHighOrderCogn 0.17 0.16 0.07 0.11 0.29 0.14 0.23 0.18 0.10 0.21 0.31 0.30PreExhibScholarlySkills 0.15 0.14 0.03 0.18 0.28 0.11 0.27 0.23 0.10 0.20 0.23 0.44PreNeedCognLite 0.18 0.10 -0.02 0.07 0.20 0.15 0.21 0.08 0.01 0.15 0.20 0.25PreMultPerspectives 0.30 0.11 -0.06 0.03 0.21 0.10 0.21 0.13 0.07 0.28 0.20 0.22PreProjMgt 0.13 0.11 0.03 0.18 0.24 0.10 0.29 0.19 0.07 0.17 0.12 0.30PreRatingAcadAbil 0.06 0.02 -0.07 0.04 0.12 0.03 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.09 0.14 0.22PreRatingLeadCollabSkills 0.13 0.04 0.03 0.07 0.17 0.08 0.17 0.12 0.02 0.28 0.11 0.12PreRatingIndepVoice 0.14 0.08 0.03 0.03 0.15 0.06 0.15 0.07 0.05 0.27 0.11 0.19PreRatingStriver 0.12 0.14 0.15 0.09 0.27 0.12 0.27 0.16 0.03 0.26 0.19 0.27PreResearchOrient 0.09 0.16 0.09 0.13 0.24 0.17 0.26 0.19 0.04 0.03 0.20 0.25PreStatusCareerOrient 0.01 0.08 0.10 0.09 0.16 0.12 0.16 0.01 -0.07 0.05 0.10 0.11

Notes:

A perception that the capstone contributed to the student’s development and that the capstone was successful are mostly highly correlated with expecting a good capstone, .48 and .52, respectively. Perhaps this reflects a combination of students correctly judging they have the required skills and motivation.

Pre‐Capston

e Survey Scales

9 5/27/2012 Table 4.6Part 4, Page: 70

Table 4.6: Scale Inter‐Corr

Correlations

PreExpectGoodCapstone

PreSatisInstr

PreSatisSuppSrv

PreCivicOrient

PreHighOrderCogn

PreExhibScholarlySkills

PreNeedCognLite

PreMultPerspectives

PreProjMgt

PreRatingAcadAbil

PreRatingLeadCollabSkills

PreRatingIndepVoice

PreRatingStriver

PreResearchOrient

PreStatusCareerOrient

Pre‐Capston

e Survey Scales

Post‐Capstone Survey Scales

PostNeedCognLite

PostMultPerspectives

PostProjMgt

PostRatingAcadAbil

PostRatingLeadCollab

SkillsPostRatingIndepVoice

PostResearchOrient

PostRatingStriver

PostStatusCareerOrie

nt

0.26 0.26 0.23 0.10 0.13 0.10 0.27 0.18 0.16

0.12 0.09 0.15 0.14 0.10 0.05 0.12 0.15 0.03

0.03 0.07 0.09 -0.01 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.01

0.18 0.29 0.20 0.06 0.27 0.23 0.04 0.26 0.02

0.22 0.24 0.18 0.16 0.10 0.15 0.19 0.17 0.10

0.35 0.24 0.29 0.37 0.26 0.25 0.28 0.33 0.10

0.70 0.27 0.07 0.42 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.14 0.15

0.31 0.44 0.10 0.20 0.16 0.21 0.14 0.12 0.01

0.08 0.14 0.51 0.13 0.16 0.13 0.18 0.40 0.10

0.44 0.16 0.10 0.74 0.33 0.35 0.26 0.27 0.13

0.22 0.15 0.12 0.29 0.80 0.32 0.02 0.27 0.20

0.28 0.17 0.13 0.29 0.38 0.58 0.08 0.23 0.09

0.15 0.11 0.31 0.26 0.32 0.26 0.21 0.64 0.22

0.27 0.10 0.14 0.29 0.08 0.08 0.69 0.21 0.11

0.14 0.00 0.14 0.09 0.18 0.08 0.14 0.14 0.70

10 5/27/2012 Table 4.6Part 4, Page: 71

Table 4.7: Scale Inter‐Correlations ‐ Pre‐ to Post‐Faculty Survey

Correlations Pre‐ Post‐

PreCommunSkills

PreEffProjectMgt

PreIntelEngagement

PreCrThinkSkills

PostCommunSkills

PostEffProjectMgt

PostIntelEngagement

PostCrThinkSkills

StudentTopicMotiv

MentorInstruction

MentorRapport

PreCommunSkills 0.72 0.67 0.76 0.53 0.45 0.44 0.48 0.24 0.10 0.21PreEffProjectMgt 0.72 0.77 0.82 0.43 0.54 0.48 0.52 0.30 0.11 0.29PreIntelEngagement 0.67 0.77 0.81 0.41 0.43 0.55 0.50 0.37 0.12 0.26PreCrThinkSkills 0.76 0.82 0.81 0.45 0.47 0.49 0.53 0.29 0.11 0.24PostCommunSkills 0.53 0.43 0.41 0.45 0.73 0.71 0.77 0.41 0.23 0.46PostEffProjectMgt 0.45 0.54 0.43 0.47 0.73 0.83 0.85 0.57 0.36 0.58PostIntelEngagement 0.44 0.48 0.55 0.49 0.71 0.83 0.87 0.63 0.31 0.54Table 4. 4: Scale Inter-Correlations - Pre-Student Survey

0.48 0.52 0.50 0.53 0.77 0.85 0.87 0.54 0.31 0.55

StudentTopicMotiv 0.24 0.30 0.37 0.29 0.41 0.57 0.63 0.54 0.38 0.49MentorInstruction 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.23 0.36 0.31 0.31 0.38 0.74MentorRapport 0.21 0.29 0.26 0.24 0.46 0.58 0.54 0.55 0.49 0.74

Notes:

The correlations of the four pre scales to their corresponding post scales are about 0.53‐0.55, which seems a bit low. It could be this is because in some cases the mentor who did the post survey was not the same as the faculty member doing the pre‐capstone survey, or the nature of the capstone may draw out different skills than a regular course.

The inter‐correlations of the four student performance rating scales are high (0.66 ‐ 0.87) for each of the pre and post sets of scales. Are these areas that inter‐related or are faculty not able to make the distinctions we would anticipate?

The correlations of both StudentTopicMotiv and the mentor's rating of their instruction (MentorInstruction) and rapport with the student (MentorRapport) are positively correlated with the student performance scales. MentorRapport, which touches more on affective aspects of the student‐mentor relationship (feeling comfortable with the student, having an interest in the student’s topic, providing encouragement), is more highly correlated with student performance than MentorInstruction, which focuses on more pragmatic aspects (providing access, advice, feedback and scholarly expertise).

11 5/27/2012 Table 4.7 Part 4, Page: 72

Correlations

PostMentor

RelPostCapC

ontDevPostCapMoreEngaging

PostCapSuccessful

PostSatisInstr

PostHighOrderCogn

PostExhibScholarlySkill

s

PostNeedCognLite

PostMultPerspectives2

PostProjMgt

PostRatingAcadAbil

PostRatingCollabSkills

PostRatingIndepVoice

PostResearchOrient

PostRatingStriver

PostStatusCareerOrie

ntPostPrepBreadth .11 .27 .09 .31 .16 .19 .16 .21 .38 .11 .09 .14 .17 .11 .14 .05PostPrepDisc .24 .43 .27 .33 .32 .30 .29 .12 .17 .17 .06 .07 .13 .22 .20 .13PostPrepQuant .10 .22 .09 .16 .09 .22 .14 .00 -.06 .15 -.02 .06 .07 .13 .20 .16PostMentorRel .37 .23 .41 .44 .20 .34 .09 .10 .32 .06 .06 .07 .15 .12 .11PostCapContDev .37 .47 .70 .38 .51 .60 .28 .41 .39 .21 .19 .23 .35 .29 .21PostCapMoreEngaging .23 .47 .58 .23 .32 .38 .16 .28 .23 .07 .07 .09 .18 .13 .12PostCapSuccessful .41 .70 .58 .39 .42 .51 .29 .40 .42 .16 .17 .18 .33 .27 .21

Stu PostSatisInstr .44 .38 .23 .39 .22 .34 .13 .18 .25 .14 .12 .09 .19 .21 .05PostSatisSuppSrv .23 .24 .07 .19 .36 .13 .16 .05 .10 .12 .00 .01 .06 .05 .04 -.03PostCivicOrient .05 .28 .10 .26 .15 .23 .21 .26 .33 .20 .13 .28 .30 .10 .29 .13PostHighOrderCogn .20 .51 .32 .42 .22 .43 .26 .38 .21 .20 .14 .19 .31 .21 .16PostExhibScholarlySkills .34 .60 .38 .51 .34 .43 .32 .41 .54 .32 .22 .29 .35 .35 .17PostNeedCognLite .09 .28 .16 .29 .13 .26 .32 .34 .12 .51 .25 .32 .36 .21 .23PostMultPerspectives2 .10 .41 .28 .40 .18 .38 .41 .34 .18 .22 .18 .22 .16 .15 .05PostProjMgt .32 .39 .23 .42 .25 .21 .54 .12 .18 .13 .16 .17 .20 .39 .18PostRatingAcadAbil .06 .21 .07 .16 .14 .20 .32 .51 .22 .13 .40 .47 .37 .36 .14PostRatingCollabSkills .06 .19 .07 .17 .12 .14 .22 .25 .18 .16 .40 .46 .10 .39 .22PostRatingIndepVoice .07 .23 .09 .18 .09 .19 .29 .32 .22 .17 .47 .46 .19 .37 .12PostResearchOrient .15 .35 .18 .33 .19 .31 .35 .36 .16 .20 .37 .10 .19 .27 .16PostRatingStriver .12 .29 .13 .27 .21 .21 .35 .21 .15 .39 .36 .39 .37 .27 .23PostStatusCareerOrient .11 .21 .12 .21 .16 .17 .23 .05 .18 .14 .22 .12 .16 .23PostCommunSkills .18 .15 .20 .20 .09 .23 .10 .02 .20 .28 .26 .16 .06PostEffProjectMgt .26 .21 .12 .27 .22 .09 .27 .07 .33 .19 .30 .22 .08

Fac PostIntelEngagement .23 .16 .10 .24 .18 .23 .14 .07 .20 .28 .32 .17PostCrThinkSkills .24 .18 .09 .25 .21 .10 .26 .11 .25 .25 .31 .19 .08PostStudentTopicMotiv .23 .22 .22 .31 .18 .12 .26 .18 .19 .21 .20 .12 .09 .22 .14PostMentorInstruction .28 .16 .16 .14 .08 .16 .17 .05PostMentorRapport .320 .187 .209 .226 .177 .104 .189 .174 .143 .161 .108

Based on all capstone data. Ns are approximately 1600 for student to student item correlations, 500 for faculty to student item correlations.

Table 4.8: Post Student and Post Faculty Scale Inter‐Correlations

Table 4.8

Part 4, Page: 73

Summative Ratings of Capstone Cont. to Development Scale Ratings of Performance

CorrelationsIndependence

Intellectual Engagement

Self‐understanding

Project Management Research

Critical Thinking and Reasoning

Communication

PostCommunSkills

PostEffProjectMgt

PostIntelEngagem

ent

PostCrThinkSkills

PostStudentTopicMot

iv

PostMentorInstructi

on

PostMentorRapport

Independence 0.77 0.74 0.71 0.73 0.76 0.70 0.54 0.68 0.74 0.68 0.60 0.24 0.41Intellectual Engagement 0.77 0.75 0.70 0.75 0.76 0.70 0.51 0.69 0.75 0.67 0.65 0.36 0.52Self‐understanding 0.74 0.75 0.75 0.76 0.77 0.74 0.57 0.73 0.72 0.70 0.58 0.33 0.52Project Management 0.71 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.76 0.73 0.60 0.78 0.70 0.71 0.59 0.30 0.48Research 0.73 0.75 0.76 0.80 0.83 0.75 0.62 0.75 0.75 0.76 0.58 0.34 0.54Critical Thinking and Reasoning 0.76 0.76 0.77 0.76 0.83 0.81 0.65 0.75 0.77 0.79 0.56 0.33 0.52

Communication 0.70 0.70 0.74 0.73 0.75 0.81 0.68 0.69 0.69 0.71 0.53 0.34 0.52PostCommunSkills 0.54 0.51 0.57 0.60 0.62 0.65 0.68 0.73 0.71 0.77 0.41 0.23 0.46PostEffProjectMgt 0.68 0.69 0.73 0.78 0.75 0.75 0.69 0.73 0.83 0.85 0.57 0.36 0.58PostIntelEngagement 0.74 0.75 0.72 0.70 0.75 0.77 0.69 0.71 0.83 0.87 0.63 0.31 0.54PostCrThinkSkills 0.68 0.67 0.70 0.71 0.76 0.79 0.71 0.77 0.85 0.87 0.54 0.31 0.55PostStudentTopicMotiv 0.60 0.65 0.58 0.59 0.58 0.56 0.53 0.41 0.57 0.63 0.54 0.38 0.49PostMentorInstruction 0.24 0.36 0.33 0.30 0.34 0.33 0.34 0.23 0.36 0.31 0.31 0.38 0.74PostMentorRapport 0.41 0.52 0.52 0.48 0.54 0.52 0.52 0.46 0.58 0.54 0.55 0.49 0.74

Notes:

Summative Ra

tings

Scales

All correlations are significant p<=.001. Ns ranged from about 900 to 1500.

This shows the correlations of the seven single question summative items (independence to communication above) to the related post‐student scales. The correlations of the four matched items are high. Future surveys might reasonably use just the summative items when survey length is a consideration.

Table 4.9: Faculty Summative Assessments to Faculty Scales Inter‐Correlations

13 5/27/2012 Table 4.9Part 4, Page: 74

TABLES 4.10 – 4.13: PRE to POST CAPSTONE CHANGES Overall and by School, Major Division, GPA, and Gender This set of tables concerns pre‐ to post‐capstone changes in our scales and for individual survey questions. The data is based on the subset of about 1240 capstones in our database for which there was both a pre‐ and post‐capstone survey returned.

Table 4.10: Scale and Item Means and Pre/Post Changes by Student Subgroup (All, School, Major, GPA Group, Gender)

Scales and their component items are listed first for the student scales, then the faculty scales. The “Pre” and “Post” columns indicate the means from the pre‐ and post‐capstone surveys, respectively. Some scales/items have only a Pre or Post value they were only asked on the pre or post‐capstone survey, respectively. The “D” column indicates the mean of the difference scores computed for each individual capstone where both a pre and post response was available, computed as the post value minus the pre value. Thus the “D” values are based on a repeat measures design for individual capstones and, arguably, our best measure for change. The “Post” minus “Pre” value may not equal the “D” value because of rounding and students responding to a question only one or the pre or post surveys. Asterisks indicated statistically significant differences.

Table 4.11: Significant Pre/Post Changes for Scales and Sub‐items, by Student Subgroups Pre/Post Capstone Change: Significant Changes for Scales and Individual Items

Table 4.11 summarizes statistically significant differences with and up or down arrow indicating the direction of change.

Table 4.12: Significant Pre/Post Changes for Scales, by Student Subgroups Pre/Post Capstone Change: Significant Changes for Scales

Table 4.12 summarizes statistically significant differences among the scales only (dropping individual items) with and up or down arrow indicating the direction of change.

Table 4.13: Summary Sheet: Means of Scales and Summative Items asked only on the Post‐Capstone Student and Faculty Surveys

Part 4, Page: 75

Table 4.10: Pre/Post Capstone Change: Changes in Survey Means, Overall and by School, Major Division, GPA Group and GenderBased on capstones for which there was both a pre- and post-capstone survey.

Combined 2009/10 and 2010/11 Data Pre-post differences, "D", are based on difference scores for paired responses for individual capstones.Exel Conditional Formatting color scales have been used to Sig of D: * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001, using 2-tailed T-test for dependent samples. eff=effect size using avg. D/stdev Dhighlight variation within each scale row. Note that the Pre/Post differences of the means may not equal D for some questions, due to respondents

that did not respond to the question on both surveys.

Line All Red Tan White Yellow1 Pre Post D Sig. eff N Pre Post D Sig. eff N Pre Post D Sig. eff N Pre Post D Sig. eff N Pre Post D Sig. eff N

2 Student Scales [1]3 5 point scale

4 ExpectGoodCapstone 4.20 1201 4.33 385 4.14 291 4.10 168 4.16 357

5 My capstone will lead to a better understanding of my skills, abilities and interests 4.33 1201 4.43 385 4.27 291 4.33 168 4.26 357

6 My ability to think critically and analytically will improve 4.26 1200 4.39 384 4.15 291 4.21 168 4.25 357

7 My understanding of my discipline will improve 4.37 1200 4.49 385 4.34 291 4.25 167 4.34 357

8 My capstone will better prepare me for a job or graduate school 4.12 1195 4.31 383 4.14 290 3.87 166 4.01 356

9 My capstone will help me clarify my career or graduate school objectives 3.76 1200 3.86 385 3.89 290 3.69 168 3.57 357

10 My oral presentation skills will improve 4.02 1199 4.13 384 3.99 291 3.75 167 4.04 357

11 My writing skills will improve 4.17 1201 4.41 385 4.00 291 4.00 168 4.14 357

12 My capstone will be more engaging than my regular course work 4.46 1200 4.55 385 4.33 290 4.39 168 4.49 357

13 I expect to create new knowledge in my discipline 3.99 1198 4.09 384 3.90 290 4.01 167 3.97 357

14 My capstone will be intellectually challenging 4.52 1200 4.62 385 4.39 291 4.51 168 4.51 356

15 4 point scales

16 CivicOrient 2.84 2.85 .01 .02 1229 2.74 2.74 .00 .00 390 2.97 2.98 .01 .02 296 2.83 2.89 .06 .13 171 2.84 2.83 -.01 -.01 372

17 Volunteering in my community 2.79 2.78 -.01 -.01 1224 2.67 2.65 -.02 -.02 388 2.90 2.92 .02 .03 296 2.78 2.85 .07 .09 171 2.83 2.78 -.05 -.07 369

18 Helping others who are in difficulty 3.22 3.20 -.02 -.03 1226 3.12 3.13 .01 .01 390 3.36 3.31 -.05 -.07 295 3.22 3.20 -.02 -.03 171 3.22 3.20 -.03 -.04 370

19 Becoming a community leader 2.63 2.65 .03 .04 1225 2.53 2.54 .01 .01 389 2.79 2.80 .02 .03 294 2.52 2.66 .14 * .17 170 2.64 2.65 .01 .01 372

20 Influencing social values 2.86 2.88 .03 .04 1229 2.76 2.82 .05 .07 390 2.94 2.96 .02 .02 296 2.94 2.97 .03 .04 171 2.85 2.85 .01 .01 372

21 Integrating spirituality into my life 2.36 2.35 .00 .00 1225 2.21 2.17 -.04 -.05 390 2.55 2.57 .02 .03 294 2.34 2.44 .11 .13 171 2.36 2.33 -.02 -.04 370

22 Developing a meaningful philosophy of life 3.18 3.20 .02 .03 1228 3.17 3.14 -.02 -.03 390 3.28 3.31 .02 .03 296 3.15 3.20 .05 .06 171 3.14 3.19 .05 .07 371

23 StatusCareerOrient 2.61 2.58 -.02 -.04 1229 2.55 2.50 -.06 * -.11 390 2.55 2.51 -.04 -.09 296 2.71 2.72 .02 .03 171 2.66 2.67 .01 .03 372

24 Becoming accomplished in my field of expertise 3.43 3.32 -.11 *** -.16 1229 3.33 3.19 -.14 *** -.20 390 3.48 3.34 -.14 *** -.20 296 3.49 3.44 -.05 -.07 171 3.47 3.40 -.07 * -.11 372

25 Working in a prestigious occupation 2.23 2.24 .01 .02 1225 2.13 2.13 .00 .00 390 2.13 2.15 .02 .03 295 2.37 2.37 .01 .01 171 2.34 2.37 .02 .03 369

26 Making a lot of money 2.19 2.21 .01 .02 1229 2.15 2.14 -.01 -.02 390 2.08 2.10 .01 .02 296 2.37 2.39 .02 .03 171 2.23 2.27 .04 .06 372

27 Obtaining recognition from my colleagues for contributions to my special field 2.58 2.57 -.01 -.01 1225 2.60 2.53 -.07 -.08 387 2.52 2.47 -.05 -.06 296 2.60 2.69 .09 .10 171 2.58 2.63 .05 .06 371

28 HighOrderCogn 3.24 3.20 -.05 * -.07 1199 3.21 3.20 .01 .01 383 3.30 3.15 -.15 *** -.22 291 3.21 3.15 -.07 -.11 168 3.24 3.24 -.01 -.01 357

29Synthesizing and organizing ideas, information, or experiences into new, more complex interpretations and relationships 3.31 3.39 .08 ** .09 1198 3.30 3.41 .13 ** .15 383 3.35 3.38 .01 .01 291 3.26 3.33 .06 .07 167 3.32 3.42 .09 .10 357

30Making judgments about the value of information, arguments, or methods, such as examining how others gathered and interpreted data and assessing the soundness of their conclusions

3.12 3.14 .02 .02 1199 3.09 3.10 .02 .02 383 3.19 3.13 -.08 -.08 291 2.99 3.10 .08 .07 168 3.15 3.20 .07 .06 357

31Analyzing the basic elements of an idea, experience, or theory, such as examining a particular case or situation in depth and considering its components 3.26 3.19 -.07 * -.07 1199 3.23 3.19 -.02 -.03 383 3.30 3.14 -.16 ** -.16 291 3.30 3.20 -.11 -.12 168 3.25 3.23 -.03 -.03 357

32 Applying theories or concepts to practical problems or in new situations 3.27 3.06 -.21 *** -.20 1196 3.22 3.11 -.10 -.10 381 3.34 2.97 -.38 *** -.34 291 3.30 2.97 -.31 *** -.30 168 3.25 3.11 -.15 ** -.15 356

33 MultPerspectives 3.04 2.84 -.19 *** -.30 1200 3.01 2.82 -.19 *** -.33 383 3.12 3.01 -.12 ** -.17 291 3.03 2.86 -.17 ** -.24 168 3.01 2.74 -.27 *** -.42 358

34Tried to better understand someone else’s views by imagining how an issue looks from his or her perspective 3.01 2.74 -.26 *** -.25 1197 2.98 2.73 -.24 *** -.24 381 3.09 2.97 -.12 -.11 291 3.02 2.76 -.26 ** -.23 168 2.97 2.57 -.41 *** -.38 357

35 Examined the strengths and weaknesses of your own views on a topic or issue 2.94 3.02 .08 ** .08 1197 2.93 2.98 .06 .07 383 2.98 3.10 .11 * .12 290 2.94 3.00 .07 .07 168 2.92 3.00 .07 .07 356

36 Included diverse perspectives (different races, religions, gender, political beliefs, etc )

2.92 2.46 -.44 *** -.40 1200 2.93 2.43 -.51 *** -.49 383 3.05 2.77 -.29 *** -.24 291 2.85 2.53 -.33 *** -.29 168 2.82 2.24 -.56 *** -.52 358

37 Learned something that changed the way you understand an issue or concept 3.10 3.04 -.07 * -.08 1200 3.03 3.01 -.02 -.03 383 3.18 3.18 -.03 -.03 291 3.07 2.91 -.16 * -.16 168 3.12 3.02 -.11 * -.11 358

38 Put together ideas or concepts from different courses 3.22 2.96 -.26 *** -.26 1200 3.16 2.94 -.23 *** -.23 383 3.28 3.01 -.27 *** -.25 291 3.24 3.08 -.17 * -.17 168 3.22 2.87 -.34 *** -.34 358

39 5 point scales

40 SatisInstr 4.46 4.44 -.01 -.03 1203 4.46 4.47 .01 .03 385 4.44 4.37 -.07 * -.13 292 4.43 4.43 .00 .00 168 4.48 4.47 .00 -.01 358

41 Quality of instruction in my major field 4.57 4.53 -.03 -.05 1201 4.51 4.52 .01 .01 383 4.58 4.49 -.09 * -.14 292 4.59 4.54 -.05 -.08 168 4.59 4.58 -.01 -.01 358

42 Overall quality of instruction 4.38 4.39 .00 .00 1200 4.41 4.42 .01 .02 385 4.33 4.29 -.03 -.04 290 4.36 4.38 .02 .02 168 4.41 4.42 .01 .02 357

43 Overall college experience 4.42 4.41 -.01 -.01 1201 4.46 4.48 .02 .04 384 4.41 4.33 -.08 * -.12 292 4.35 4.39 .05 .08 167 4.42 4.40 -.01 -.02 358

1 4/27/2012 Table 4.8

Part 4, Page: 76


44 SatisSuppSrv 3.99 3.92 -.07 *** -.10 1203 4.11 4.01 -.10 ** -.16 385 4.20 4.16 -.04 -.07 292 3.76 3.71 -.05 -.07 168 3.79 3.73 -.06 -.09 358

45 Computer facilities and services 3.81 3.76 -.05 -.05 1202 4.05 3.96 -.09 * -.10 385 4.07 4.05 -.02 -.02 291 3.69 3.67 -.01 -.01 168 3.40 3.37 -.03 -.04 358

46 Library facilities and services 4.18 4.10 -.08 *** -.10 1203 4.28 4.20 -.08 * -.11 385 4.42 4.35 -.07 -.10 292 3.65 3.53 -.14 -.14 168 4.13 4.06 -.07 -.08 358

47 Facilities/equipment in my major field 3.98 3.91 -.07 ** -.08 1201 4.02 3.88 -.13 ** -.15 383 4.12 4.09 -.02 -.03 292 3.93 3.94 -.01 -.01 168 3.84 3.77 -.08 -.08 358

48 ExhibScholarlySkills 4.15 4.35 .19 *** .42 1228 4.13 4.34 .22 *** .52 389 4.18 4.31 .12 *** .25 296 4.14 4.33 .17 *** .35 171 4.17 4.40 .23 *** .49 372

49 I located appropriate source material 4.22 4.45 .21 *** .30 1225 4.22 4.45 .22 *** .30 389 4.23 4.38 .14 ** .19 295 4.20 4.46 .23 *** .36 171 4.22 4.49 .25 *** .35 370

50 I used disciplinary knowledge and methods appropriately 4.13 4.32 .19 *** .25 1217 4.09 4.28 .19 *** .24 385 4.22 4.37 .14 ** .19 294 4.10 4.34 .24 *** .33 171 4.11 4.32 .21 *** .26 367

51 I supported my arguments with appropriate evidence 4.24 4.43 .17 *** .23 1220 4.22 4.43 .19 *** .25 387 4.28 4.38 .10 * .13 295 4.24 4.40 .15 ** .22 170 4.24 4.47 .23 *** .30 368

52 I showed originality 4.07 4.23 .16 *** .20 1221 4.03 4.24 .22 *** .27 387 4.12 4.18 .06 .07 295 4.12 4.27 .12 * .16 171 4.05 4.23 .20 *** .25 368

53 I synthesized information to produce insights that expanded my understanding 4.07 4.36 .29 *** .37 1214 4.07 4.35 .28 *** .37 383 4.06 4.32 .25 *** .31 294 4.09 4.35 .26 *** .34 170 4.08 4.42 .35 *** .44 367

54 I demonstrated good communication skills 4.14 4.28 .12 *** .16 1223 4.05 4.25 .18 *** .26 387 4.17 4.26 .09 .12 295 4.25 4.29 .01 .01 171 4.17 4.31 .14 ** .16 370

55 I showed evidence of independent thinking 4.24 4.45 .20 *** .29 1224 4.20 4.44 .25 *** .36 389 4.26 4.39 .12 ** .16 295 4.22 4.44 .19 *** .27 171 4.28 4.51 .23 *** .34 369

56 I showed skill with quantitative reasoning 3.74 3.94 .12 *** .14 1186 3.70 3.85 .07 .07 371 3.66 3.83 .05 .05 284 3.79 4.00 .19 ** .25 169 3.83 4.07 .20 *** .23 362

57 I persisted when faced with conceptual and practical difficulties 4.19 4.43 .23 *** .30 1221 4.12 4.42 .30 *** .40 385 4.24 4.34 .08 .10 295 4.14 4.41 .24 *** .32 171 4.23 4.51 .27 *** .36 370

58 I used feedback to assess my performance 4.20 4.39 .17 *** .20 1222 4.20 4.38 .17 *** .21 386 4.24 4.37 .14 * .14 296 4.16 4.39 .19 ** .23 171 4.19 4.40 .20 *** .23 369

59 Integrated ideas or information from various sources 3.55 3.67 .12 *** .17 1199 3.58 3.67 .09 * .13 383 3.58 3.63 .03 .04 291 3.42 3.61 .19 ** .25 168 3.55 3.73 .18 *** .26 357

60 NeedCognLite 3.88 3.92 .05 *** .11 1229 3.93 3.97 .05 * .10 390 3.82 3.86 .04 .09 296 3.94 4.00 .06 .12 171 3.84 3.89 .05 * .11 372

61 The notion of thinking abstractly is appealing to me 3.85 3.92 .08 *** .10 1218 3.87 3.95 .08 .09 386 3.85 3.85 .00 .00 294 3.92 4.09 .17 ** .23 170 3.80 3.88 .09 * .11 368

62 I enjoy expressing my ideas in writing 3.85 3.92 .07 ** .09 1218 3.96 4.01 .05 .08 385 3.87 3.91 .04 .05 294 3.87 3.96 .11 .13 170 3.72 3.81 .09 * .12 369

63 I really enjoy a task that involves coming up with new solutions to problems 4.02 4.09 .08 *** .10 1220 4.01 4.11 .10 * .13 386 3.99 4.07 .09 * .14 295 4.08 4.11 .03 .04 170 4.02 4.07 .06 .08 369

64 Creating original works 2.88 2.84 -.04 -.04 1228 3.00 2.92 -.08 * -.11 390 2.68 2.70 .02 .03 296 2.99 2.94 -.05 -.06 171 2.87 2.84 -.03 -.03 371

65I have confidence in my opinions, even if they are contrary to the general consensus 4.09 4.14 .05 * .07 1220 4.07 4.15 .07 * .10 386 4.09 4.14 .05 .07 295 4.13 4.18 .06 .08 170 4.10 4.12 .03 .04 369

66 ProjMgt 3.91 4.04 .13 *** .17 1226 3.83 4.02 .19 *** .27 389 3.95 4.06 .09 .12 296 3.92 4.00 .07 .09 171 3.96 4.08 .12 ** .16 370

67 I properly planned tasks to achieve project goals 3.94 4.06 .10 *** .11 1222 3.87 4.06 .18 *** .21 387 3.98 4.09 .09 .09 296 3.89 3.97 .06 .07 171 4.01 4.07 .06 .06 368

68 I demonstrated effective time management in completing tasks 3.72 3.92 .21 *** .20 1225 3.61 3.85 .25 *** .25 388 3.76 3.96 .20 ** .17 296 3.80 3.87 .07 .07 171 3.76 3.99 .24 *** .25 370

69 I identified manageable sets of goals for my projects 4.07 4.17 .08 ** .09 1224 4.02 4.16 .15 *** .18 388 4.12 4.16 .02 .02 296 4.06 4.16 .07 .08 171 4.10 4.18 .06 .07 369

70 RatingAcadAbil 3.86 3.95 .10 *** .27 1229 3.85 3.96 .10 *** .28 390 3.85 3.94 .09 *** .26 296 3.86 3.94 .08 ** .23 171 3.86 3.97 .11 *** .31 372

71 Writing ability 3.77 3.90 .13 *** .19 1225 3.83 3.97 .14 *** .22 389 3.77 3.87 .10 * .14 295 3.76 3.82 .06 .09 170 3.71 3.88 .17 *** .25 371

72 Creativity 3.77 3.84 .07 *** .11 1226 3.75 3.79 .05 .08 390 3.79 3.84 .05 .08 295 3.78 3.89 .12 * .20 170 3.77 3.85 .07 * .12 371

73 Academic ability 4.00 4.09 .09 *** .16 1229 3.98 4.08 .09 ** .17 390 4.01 4.08 .07 * .14 296 4.00 4.10 .10 * .18 171 4.02 4.11 .09 ** .17 372

74 Ability to think critically 3.95 4.06 .12 *** .17 1228 3.95 4.09 .14 *** .21 389 3.91 4.02 .11 ** .18 296 3.94 4.02 .08 .11 171 3.97 4.09 .12 ** .17 372

75 Self-confidence (intellectual) 3.79 3.88 .09 *** .13 1228 3.77 3.85 .09 * .12 390 3.74 3.88 .14 *** .20 296 3.82 3.88 .06 .08 171 3.82 3.90 .08 * .11 371

76 RatingLeadCollabSkills 3.63 3.71 .08 *** .17 1229 3.61 3.71 .10 *** .22 390 3.60 3.68 .08 ** .18 296 3.63 3.65 .02 .04 171 3.69 3.76 .08 ** .16 372

77 Public speaking ability 3.42 3.56 .14 *** .20 1226 3.36 3.54 .18 *** .26 390 3.36 3.47 .11 ** .16 295 3.40 3.47 .07 .10 171 3.54 3.68 .15 *** .22 370

78 Leadership ability 3.90 3.94 .04 * .06 1227 3.86 3.91 .04 .07 388 3.95 4.01 .06 .09 296 3.85 3.85 .01 .01 171 3.94 3.97 .03 .05 372

79 Self-confidence (social) 3.58 3.63 .05 * .07 1228 3.59 3.67 .07 .10 390 3.49 3.57 .08 .11 296 3.65 3.63 -.02 -.03 171 3.60 3.63 .04 .06 371

80 RatingIndepVoice 4.09 4.12 .03 * .07 1229 4.08 4.10 .03 .05 390 4.08 4.12 .03 .06 296 4.14 4.13 -.01 -.01 171 4.09 4.15 .06 * .12 372

81 Self-understanding 4.00 4.05 .05 * .06 1228 3.98 4.04 .06 .08 389 3.99 4.04 .05 .06 296 4.13 4.08 -.05 -.06 171 3.98 4.05 .08 * .11 372

82 Understanding of others 4.07 4.08 .02 .02 1227 4.06 4.06 -.01 -.01 389 4.09 4.14 .05 .06 295 4.09 4.03 -.06 -.08 171 4.04 4.09 .05 .07 372

83 Ability to think and act on my own 4.20 4.24 .04 .05 1227 4.19 4.22 .02 .03 389 4.17 4.17 .00 .00 296 4.19 4.28 .09 .12 171 4.23 4.29 .05 .08 371

84 RatingStriver 4.05 4.09 .04 * .07 1229 3.96 4.02 .06 * .11 390 4.11 4.11 .00 .00 296 4.03 4.06 .03 .06 171 4.12 4.18 .06 * .11 372

85 Drive to achieve 4.08 4.13 .05 * .07 1229 3.94 4.02 .08 * .11 390 4.14 4.17 .03 .04 296 4.09 4.13 .04 .05 171 4.17 4.22 .04 .07 372

86 Persistence 4.03 4.06 .03 .05 1226 3.98 4.02 .04 .05 389 4.07 4.05 -.02 -.03 295 3.96 3.99 .03 .04 171 4.06 4.13 .08 * .12 371

87 ResearchOrient 3.60 3.78 .18 *** .29 1229 3.69 3.89 .20 *** .34 390 3.46 3.60 .14 *** .21 296 3.57 3.80 .23 *** .37 171 3.62 3.79 .16 *** .26 372

88 I enjoy doing research 3.56 3.73 .17 *** .20 1219 3.73 3.86 .14 *** .18 385 3.35 3.51 .17 *** .20 295 3.52 3.79 .27 *** .29 170 3.59 3.73 .15 *** .17 369

89 Research skills 3.63 3.82 .19 *** .27 1224 3.66 3.92 .26 *** .37 389 3.58 3.68 .11 ** .15 294 3.61 3.81 .20 *** .30 171 3.66 3.84 .19 *** .26 370

90 Student Experience Scales (Post Only)

91 4 point scales

92 PrepBreadth 2.33 1217 2.34 387 2.45 295 2.32 171 2.20 364

93 Study abroad experiences 2.35 677 2.53 230 2.24 182 2.39 93 2.21 172

2 4/27/2012 Table 4.8

Part 4, Page: 77


94 Volunteer experiences 2.03 1018 1.92 319 2.32 259 2.08 140 1.87 300

95 My non-academic interests/experiences 2.73 1140 2.76 370 2.83 267 2.69 162 2.62 341

96 My job or internship experiences 2.46 1023 2.37 315 2.67 261 2.55 137 2.34 310

97 Courses outside my major(s) and minor(s) 2.10 1195 2.18 379 2.19 289 2.03 170 1.97 357

98 PrepDisc 2.91 1218 2.91 388 2.87 295 2.78 171 2.99 364

99 A junior or senior seminar 2.91 1072 2.97 347 2.71 232 2.56 131 3.10 362

100 A research methods or skills course 2.86 1038 2.91 336 2.69 242 2.70 145 3.00 315

101 Assistance from librarians or use of library services 2.32 1114 2.29 368 2.45 271 2.14 148 2.33 327

102 Courses in my major(s) or minors(s) 3.48 1214 3.47 386 3.48 294 3.46 170 3.49 364

103 PrepQuant 2.42 1068 2.44 337 2.28 261 2.34 155 2.55 315

104 Training in quantitative methods (statistics, tables, graphs, mathematical modeling )

2.39 986 2.43 314 2.20 239 2.32 144 2.53 289

105Training or experience with computer techniques (spreadsheets, Internet, programming, presentation software…) 2.48 1046 2.47 327 2.39 256 2.40 153 2.59 310

106 5 point scales

107 MentorRel 4.41 1157 4.46 366 4.33 278 4.41 161 4.40 352

108 My mentor gave me helpful advice 4.45 1157 4.50 366 4.37 278 4.45 161 4.45 352

109 My mentor gave me sufficient feedback 4.30 611 4.41 196 4.24 143 4.27 73 4.24 199

110 My mentor gave me useful feedback 4.41 612 4.55 196 4.34 143 4.41 74 4.34 199

111 My mentor effectively guided me through the capstone 4.21 610 4.39 195 4.19 143 4.09 74 4.11 198

112 My mentor and I communicated well 4.35 610 4.53 196 4.29 143 4.18 72 4.28 199

113 I was comfortable working with my faculty mentor 4.48 1157 4.50 366 4.41 278 4.50 161 4.52 352

114 I had access to my mentor when I needed it 4.35 1157 4.38 366 4.32 278 4.35 161 4.36 352

115 My mentor gave me timely feedback 4.29 611 4.42 196 4.27 142 4.28 74 4.19 199

116 My mentor provided helpful subject matter expertise 4.29 611 4.39 195 4.17 143 4.27 74 4.28 199

117 My mentor had reasonable expectations for my performance 4.42 612 4.55 196 4.36 143 4.34 74 4.38 199

118 My mentor met with me regularly 4.22 612 4.62 196 4.07 143 3.93 74 4.03 199

119 My mentor was genuinely interested in my project 4.47 1157 4.52 366 4.39 278 4.43 161 4.50 352

120 My mentor encouraged my independence 4.50 612 4.58 196 4.43 143 4.43 74 4.50 199

121 My mentor was experienced in capstone advising 4.36 610 4.48 196 4.15 142 4.47 73 4.36 199

122 CapContDev 4.11 1166 4.12 369 4.08 279 4.08 161 4.16 357

123 Ability to think critically and analytically 4.30 1165 4.26 369 4.27 279 4.30 161 4.36 356

124 Ability to write effectively 4.22 1163 4.30 368 4.06 279 4.22 161 4.27 355

125 Skill in the interpreting of data, evidence, texts, and/or works 4.18 1163 4.24 369 4.12 278 4.14 160 4.19 356

126 Ability to interpret primary literature 4.09 1162 4.11 368 4.00 277 4.11 161 4.12 356

127 Acquiring research related skills 4.15 1165 4.22 369 3.98 279 4.04 161 4.27 356

128 Ability to think creatively 4.10 1164 4.07 369 4.06 279 4.24 161 4.09 355

129 Having confidence in my own abilities 4.29 1164 4.30 369 4.24 278 4.27 161 4.33 356

130 Managing a large project 4.45 1165 4.54 369 4.29 279 4.35 161 4.54 356

131 Ability to make an effective oral presentation 3.72 1164 3.68 369 3.79 278 3.42 161 3.86 356

132 Learning ethical conduct in my field 3.43 1166 3.27 369 3.67 279 3.59 161 3.33 357

133 Learning effectively on my own 4.32 1165 4.28 369 4.34 279 4.19 161 4.38 356

134 CapMoreEngaging 4.17 1169 4.24 370 4.00 279 3.95 161 4.31 359

135 I worked harder on my capstone than on my regular coursework 4.30 1166 4.30 369 4.16 278 4.10 161 4.51 358

136 My capstone was more intellectually challenging than my regular coursework 4.17 1165 4.22 369 4.02 278 4.03 160 4.32 358

137 I developed more academically from my capstone than from a regular course 4.02 1169 4.20 370 3.82 279 3.74 161 4.12 359

138 CapSuccessful 4.03 1169 4.07 370 4.07 279 3.93 161 4.00 359

139 My capstone has better prepared me for a job or graduate school 3.92 1168 4.01 370 3.94 279 3.74 161 3.91 358

140 My capstone had a positive influence on my intellectual growth and interest in ideas

4.26 1166 4.32 369 4.24 279 4.11 161 4.29 357

141 My capstone has helped me clarify my career or graduate school objectives 3.56 1169 3.55 370 3.75 279 3.55 161 3.43 359

142 My capstone had a positive influence on my personal growth, attitudes, and values 4.11 1166 4.19 370 4.12 278 4.01 161 4.05 357

143 My capstone has led me to a better understanding of my skills, abilities and interests

4.28 1167 4.31 369 4.27 279 4.18 161 4.30 358

144 Understanding of my discipline improved 4.19 1167 4.23 370 4.18 278 4.04 161 4.22 358

145 Overall, I had a good capstone experience 4.25 1167 4.37 369 4.16 279 4.16 161 4.25 358

3 4/27/2012 Table 4.8

Part 4, Page: 78


146 Seeing the connection between my intended career and how it affects society 3.51 1165 3.34 369 3.96 279 3.61 161 3.29 356

147 My capstone was more engaging than my regular coursework 4.29 1169 4.36 370 4.19 279 4.04 161 4.42 359

148 I created new knowledge in my discipline 3.91 1168 3.97 370 3.90 279 3.88 160 3.88 359

149 Faculty Scales [1]

150 5 point scales N (pre)[3]

151 CommunSkills 3.89 4.11 .22 *** .27 737 3.92 4.10 .19 ** .24 201 3.85 4.18 .32 *** .42 189 3.99 4.16 .16 * .20 150 3.81 4.05 .22 ** .25 197

152 Writes in a clear, articulate manner 3.75 3.93 .18 *** .19 720 3.67 3.86 .05 .05 195 3.83 4.13 .33 *** .39 183 3.80 3.93 .18 * .19 148 3.73 3.86 .20 * .19 194

153 Writes in a well-organized manner 3.79 3.98 .18 *** .20 718 3.71 3.97 .15 .15 194 3.83 4.17 .32 *** .40 183 3.83 3.98 .14 .16 148 3.78 3.88 .15 .15 193

154 Writes without distracting errors in spelling grammar, punctuation, usage, etc. 3.82 3.91 .14 ** .13 722 3.83 3.88 .03 .03 194 3.86 4.16 .29 ** .31 186 3.81 3.84 .09 .10 148 3.79 3.84 .17 .15 194

155 Delivers an effective poster presentation 3.80 4.22 .53 *** .61 169 [2] .86 40 [2] 1.31 40 4.04 4.13 .04 .06 43 3.81 4.41 .58 * .87 46

156 Delivers an effective oral presentation 3.77 4.12 .35 *** .39 621 3.68 4.19 .40 *** .46 168 3.74 4.20 .44 *** .48 152 3.83 4.08 .24 * .25 124 3.79 4.06 .32 *** .35 177

157 EffProjectMgt 3.92 4.15 .25 *** .35 752 3.94 4.16 .30 *** .44 202 3.90 4.19 .36 *** .51 196 4.02 4.15 .16 * .21 154 3.86 4.13 .22 ** .28 200

158 Properly plans tasks to achieve project goals 3.79 3.97 .22 *** .22 743 3.83 4.01 .26 ** .27 202 3.80 4.09 .29 ** .31 190 3.85 3.92 .14 .14 153 3.69 3.91 .21 * .18 198

159 Demonstrates effective time management in completing tasks 3.75 3.87 .16 ** .14 740 3.74 3.89 .23 * .22 198 3.84 4.04 .19 * .19 192 3.78 3.79 .02 .02 152 3.67 3.81 .20 .15 198

160 Demonstrates accurate awareness of own abilities and limitations 3.69 3.97 .32 *** .32 716 3.73 4.02 .38 *** .41 190 3.61 4.06 .49 *** .49 182 3.77 3.99 .19 * .20 148 3.64 3.86 .24 * .22 196

161 Identifies a manageable set of project goals 3.82 4.04 .24 *** .25 741 3.80 4.00 .18 * .19 201 3.83 4.17 .30 *** .35 190 3.93 4.05 .18 * .19 151 3.71 3.98 .31 *** .30 199

162 Persists when faced with conceptual and practical difficulties 3.91 4.22 .34 *** .34 726 3.90 4.28 .45 *** .44 195 3.94 4.24 .39 *** .40 185 3.93 4.20 .20 * .20 150 3.88 4.19 .32 *** .32 196

163 Uses feedback to assess performance 3.92 4.15 .25 *** .25 717 3.97 4.21 .33 *** .34 196 3.80 4.21 .45 *** .45 177 3.93 4.19 .17 .17 148 3.95 4.03 .09 .08 196

164 Locates appropriate source material 3.90 4.10 .25 *** .30 716 3.98 4.21 .30 *** .35 198 3.94 4.24 .41 *** .59 184 3.92 4.01 .12 .14 142 3.80 4.00 .21 * .22 192

165 Demonstrates appropriate confidence in own intellectual ability 3.66 3.93 .30 *** .31 728 3.65 3.93 .26 ** .28 197 3.61 4.04 .50 *** .45 185 3.74 4.00 .28 *** .31 150 3.61 3.80 .21 * .21 196

166 IntelEngagement 3.90 4.11 .25 *** .34 750 3.91 4.14 .31 *** .44 202 3.88 4.17 .43 *** .61 196 4.01 4.11 .08 .11 152 3.82 4.04 .23 ** .28 200

167 Demonstrates intellectual curiosity 3.95 4.15 .22 *** .23 745 4.07 4.33 .26 *** .30 201 3.79 4.21 .46 *** .47 194 3.99 4.10 .03 .04 151 3.91 4.02 .15 .16 199

168 Shows originality 3.65 3.95 .34 *** .34 733 3.75 4.08 .36 *** .38 200 3.64 4.12 .54 *** .53 192 3.72 3.89 .13 .13 144 3.53 3.80 .35 *** .36 197

169 Shows evidence of independent thinking 3.86 4.13 .30 *** .33 743 3.94 4.28 .41 *** .48 201 3.81 4.22 .48 *** .53 191 3.90 4.08 .11 .12 151 3.80 4.02 .25 ** .25 200

170Synthesizes information to produce insights that expand the student's understanding 3.69 4.03 .42 *** .43 711 3.71 4.13 .49 *** .48 197 3.71 4.12 .47 *** .55 179 3.81 4.04 .24 ** .26 138 3.57 3.89 .48 *** .46 197

171 Actively pursues learning opportunities 3.89 4.01 .15 *** .16 734 4.03 4.14 .15 .17 199 3.82 4.12 .37 *** .47 190 3.89 3.98 .06 .07 149 3.83 3.88 .07 .07 196

172 Asks probing questions 3.67 3.88 .26 *** .25 744 3.72 3.97 .33 *** .33 200 3.59 4.05 .55 *** .57 193 3.75 3.88 .05 .05 151 3.59 3.72 .16 .15 200

173 Makes connections to other contexts (across courses, disciplines, experiences, etc )

3.68 3.93 .23 *** .23 693 3.64 3.99 .32 *** .34 190 3.80 4.13 .40 *** .45 177 3.73 3.83 .02 .02 144 3.59 3.83 .19 .17 182

174 CrThinkSkills 3.82 4.08 .31 *** .42 738 3.86 4.08 .31 *** .44 199 3.81 4.15 .43 *** .65 190 3.94 4.12 .21 ** .28 150 3.70 4.01 .32 *** .39 199175 Develops convincing arguments to support conclusions 3.70 3.95 .30 *** .34 717 3.66 4.04 .35 *** .40 194 3.70 4.05 .48 *** .62 181 3.78 3.94 .11 .12 147 3.64 3.83 .30 *** .31 195

176 Logically interprets and evaluates main points of source material 3.79 4.05 .34 *** .40 714 3.80 4.11 .34 *** .38 198 3.81 4.13 .39 *** .53 182 3.87 4.07 .21 ** .27 139 3.68 3.94 .43 *** .45 195

177 Supports arguments with appropriate evidence 3.86 4.08 .28 *** .33 722 3.89 4.10 .22 ** .25 197 3.82 4.16 .50 *** .66 181 3.85 4.10 .26 *** .35 148 3.87 3.99 .19 * .20 196

178 Uses disciplinary knowledge and methods appropriately 3.79 4.09 .35 *** .38 715 3.87 4.13 .27 ** .29 197 3.88 4.20 .41 *** .50 179 3.78 4.10 .30 *** .34 144 3.70 3.96 .42 *** .42 195

179 Addresses opposing arguments or alternative explanations 3.49 3.75 .33 *** .35 704 3.51 3.86 .45 *** .48 191 3.56 3.92 .40 *** .43 181 3.56 3.78 .23 ** .25 143 3.38 3.55 .25 ** .24 189

180 Faculty Scales ‐ Post Only

181 StudentTopicMotiv 4.24 728 4.39 209 4.17 147 4.09 154 4.24 218

182 When the project ended, how enthusiastic was the student about the topic? 4.33 723 4.49 208 4.33 147 4.10 151 4.34 217

183 When the project started, how enthusiastic was the student about the topic? 4.30 726 4.48 209 4.12 146 4.20 153 4.31 218

184To what extent did the student participate in developing / refining his /her capstone topic? 4.08 727 4.19 208 4.05 147 3.97 154 4.07 218

185 MentorInstruction 4.49 416 4.57 111 4.39 97 4.39 65 4.56 143

186 I gave useful feedback to this student 4.54 416 4.58 111 4.44 97 4.46 65 4.62 143

187 I gave this student useful feedback 4.49 273 4.54 111 4.41 97 4.51 65 .00

188 I gave timely feedback to this student 4.54 415 4.68 111 4.36 96 4.46 65 4.59 143

189 I gave this student useful advice 4.57 416 4.58 111 4.47 97 4.57 65 4.64 143

190 I effectively guided the student through the capstone 4.35 416 4.39 111 4.31 97 4.23 65 4.39 143

191 I gave this student sufficient access 4.69 416 4.68 111 4.62 97 4.63 65 4.76 143

192 I provided helpful subject matter expertise for this student's project 4.31 415 4.33 110 4.04 97 4.34 65 4.45 143

193 I met with this student regularly 4.45 415 4.77 111 4.42 97 3.94 64 4.43 143

194 MentorRapport 4.54 416 4.61 111 4.46 97 4.45 65 4.59 143

195 I felt comfortable working with this student 4.63 415 4.65 110 4.56 97 4.51 65 4.73 143

4 4/27/2012 Table 4.8

Part 4, Page: 79


196 Overall, I felt comfortable supervising this capstone 4.58 410 4.65 111 4.55 96 4.41 64 4.62 139

197 I was interested in this student's project 4.40 414 4.46 111 4.26 97 4.35 63 4.46 143

198 I communicated well with this student 4.53 415 4.59 111 4.51 97 4.40 65 4.55 142

199 I had reasonable expectations for the student’s capstone performance 4.53 415 4.62 111 4.41 97 4.55 65 4.54 142

200 I encouraged this student to work independently 4.59 415 4.72 111 4.49 97 4.48 64 4.61 143

201 Independent Summative202 Independence: Showing autonomy and initiative in thought and actions 4.10 722 4.14 209 4.09 147 4.07 148 4.08 218

203 Intellectual Engagement: Demonstrating an interest in learning 4.17 722 4.23 208 4.16 147 4.07 150 4.19 217

204 Self‐understanding: Developing an awareness of self (skills, abilities, interests) 4.08 718 4.15 208 4.17 146 4.04 149 3.98 215

205 Project Management: Conceiving and managing a project 4.14 722 4.20 209 4.13 147 4.04 148 4.15 218

206 Research: Investigating in a manner appropriate to the discipline 4.12 721 4.16 209 4.18 147 4.08 148 4.09 217

207 Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Evaluating and constructing arguments with evidence 4.04 717 4.09 209 4.06 145 3.99 147 4.01 216

208 Communication: Presenting ideas effectively (written, oral, and other forms) 4.13 719 4.18 208 4.21 146 4.10 148 4.07 217

209 Post Graduate Plans (Advanced degrees planned during lifetime) Pre Post Chg Pre Post Chg Pre Post Chg Pre Post Chg Pre Post Chg 210 GradProfSchl 62% 60% -2% 54% 38% -16% 73% 95% 22% 57% 63% 6% 67% 70% 3% 211 AdvDeg 90% 88% -2% 91% 87% -4% 91% 89% -2% 85% 83% -1% 90% 92% 2%

212 bachelors 13% 14% 1% 10% 14% 4% 12% 15% 2% 16% 17% 1% 11% 11% 0%213 masters 49% 50% 1% 42% 43% 0% 56% 59% 2% 50% 49% -1% 46% 49% 3%214 law (JD) 5% 5% 0% 5% 5% 0% 4% 2% -1% 7% 6% 0% 4% 5% 1%215 doctorate 34% 32% -2% 42% 38% -4% 28% 24% -3% 28% 28% 0% 39% 35% -4% [1] Some respondents may not have completed some individual questions, resulting in some apparent discrepencies between the D value and the difference of the indicated Post and Pre values.

[2] Means for subgroups on this item have been omitted due to a small number of usable responses, after excluding "Unable to rate" responses.[3] For simplicity only the Ns shown for the pre-faculty data are shown. For "All" data, the Ns for the post survey vaied around 720 and for the Ds around 500.

5 4/27/2012 Table 4.8

Part 4, Page: 80

Table 4.10: Pre/Post Capstone Change: Changes in S

Combined 2009/10 and 2010/11 DataExel Conditional Formatting color scales have been used tohighlight variation within each scale row.

Line 1 2 Student Scales [1]3 5 point scale

4 ExpectGoodCapstone5 My capstone will lead to a better understanding of my skills, abilities and interests

6 My ability to think critically and analytically will improve

7 My understanding of my discipline will improve

8 My capstone will better prepare me for a job or graduate school

9 My capstone will help me clarify my career or graduate school objectives

10 My oral presentation skills will improve

11 My writing skills will improve

12 My capstone will be more engaging than my regular course work

13 I expect to create new knowledge in my discipline

14 My capstone will be intellectually challenging

15 4 point scales

16 CivicOrient17 Volunteering in my community

18 Helping others who are in difficulty

19 Becoming a community leader

20 Influencing social values

21 Integrating spirituality into my life

22 Developing a meaningful philosophy of life

23 StatusCareerOrient24 Becoming accomplished in my field of expertise

25 Working in a prestigious occupation

26 Making a lot of money

27 Obtaining recognition from my colleagues for contributions to my special field

28 HighOrderCogn

29Synthesizing and organizing ideas, information, or experiences into new, more complex interpretations and relationships


31Analyzing the basic elements of an idea, experience, or theory, such as examining a particular case or situation in depth and considering its components

32 Applying theories or concepts to practical problems or in new situations

33 MultPerspectives

34Tried to better understand someone else’s views by imagining how an issue looks from his or her perspective

35 Examined the strengths and weaknesses of your own views on a topic or issue


37 Learned something that changed the way you understand an issue or concept

38 Put together ideas or concepts from different courses

39 5 point scales

40 SatisInstr41 Quality of instruction in my major field

42 Overall quality of instruction

43 Overall college experience

Results by student major for school(s):All

All‐ NatSci All‐ SocSci All‐ HumanitiesPre Post D Sig. eff N Pre Post D Sig. eff N Pre Post D Sig. eff N

4.26 317 4.22 408 4.17 328

4.31 317 4.32 408 4.39 328

4.33 317 4.33 407 4.17 328

4.41 317 4.41 408 4.37 327

4.25 316 4.13 404 3.99 327

3.83 317 3.70 408 3.72 327

4.18 317 4.05 407 3.85 327

4.14 317 4.23 408 4.29 328

4.48 317 4.50 408 4.44 327

4.09 316 3.99 407 3.91 327

4.56 317 4.51 408 4.54 327

2.78 2.79 .01 .02 327 2.88 2.87 -.01 -.02 416 2.81 2.83 .02 .04 336

2.81 2.79 -.02 -.04 326 2.79 2.79 .00 .00 415 2.71 2.71 .00 .00 334

3.15 3.14 -.01 -.01 326 3.32 3.27 -.06 -.08 414 3.14 3.16 .02 .02 336

2.55 2.54 -.01 -.01 326 2.69 2.74 .06 .08 415 2.53 2.55 .02 .02 334

2.70 2.73 .03 .04 327 2.96 2.95 .00 -.01 416 2.87 2.90 .03 .03 336

2.37 2.39 .02 .03 327 2.35 2.32 -.03 -.04 413 2.29 2.32 .02 .03 335

3.09 3.13 .04 .05 327 3.17 3.14 -.03 -.03 416 3.30 3.32 .02 .02 336

2.67 2.65 -.02 -.05 327 2.62 2.57 -.05 * -.10 416 2.51 2.51 .00 .01 336

3.52 3.42 -.11 ** -.17 327 3.33 3.23 -.09 * -.13 416 3.40 3.28 -.12 ** -.16 336

2.32 2.31 -.01 -.01 326 2.30 2.27 -.03 -.03 414 2.05 2.13 .08 .10 335

2.25 2.26 .01 .01 327 2.28 2.24 -.04 -.05 416 2.03 2.09 .05 .09 336

2.60 2.61 .01 .01 327 2.57 2.53 -.03 -.04 413 2.55 2.54 -.01 -.01 335

3.28 3.24 -.03 -.05 317 3.26 3.28 .02 .02 407 3.19 3.06 -.13 ** -.18 328

3.32 3.36 .04 .04 317 3.29 3.41 .11 * .12 406 3.33 3.45 .10 .11 328

3.07 3.24 .19 *** .19 317 3.18 3.27 .08 .08 407 3.09 2.88 -.20 ** -.16 328

3.28 3.17 -.11 * -.11 317 3.32 3.30 -.02 -.02 407 3.21 3.09 -.12 * -.12 328

3.44 3.20 -.25 *** -.26 316 3.24 3.14 -.11 * -.11 405 3.13 2.82 -.30 *** -.25 328

2.89 2.52 -.36 *** -.53 317 3.07 2.91 -.16 *** -.27 407 3.13 3.03 -.10 ** -.16 328

2.91 2.29 -.61 *** -.55 315 3.01 2.84 -.19 *** -.20 407 3.09 3.03 -.05 -.05 327

2.80 2.77 -.03 -.03 317 2.96 3.05 .10 * .11 406 3.03 3.19 .18 ** .19 327

2.59 1.80 -.77 *** -.68 317 3.04 2.65 -.40 *** -.40 407 3.09 2.84 -.26 *** -.23 328

3.04 2.88 -.16 ** -.16 317 3.09 3.09 .00 .00 407 3.18 3.11 -.08 -.09 328

3.09 2.85 -.25 *** -.23 317 3.26 2.95 -.31 *** -.31 407 3.28 2.99 -.29 *** -.28 328

4.49 4.49 -.01 -.02 318 4.43 4.42 -.01 -.03 408 4.47 4.42 -.05 -.10 329

4.66 4.64 -.03 -.06 318 4.51 4.48 -.03 -.04 407 4.56 4.50 -.06 -.08 328

4.38 4.44 .04 .06 317 4.34 4.36 .01 .02 408 4.45 4.39 -.05 -.07 329

4.43 4.40 -.03 -.05 318 4.44 4.41 -.02 -.03 406 4.40 4.36 -.04 -.06 329

6 4/27/2012 Table 4.8

Part 4, Page: 81

Line 1 44 SatisSuppSrv45 Computer facilities and services

46 Library facilities and services

47 Facilities/equipment in my major field

48 ExhibScholarlySkills49 I located appropriate source material

50 I used disciplinary knowledge and methods appropriately

51 I supported my arguments with appropriate evidence

52 I showed originality

53 I synthesized information to produce insights that expanded my understanding

54 I demonstrated good communication skills

55 I showed evidence of independent thinking

56 I showed skill with quantitative reasoning

57 I persisted when faced with conceptual and practical difficulties

58 I used feedback to assess my performance

59 Integrated ideas or information from various sources

60 NeedCognLite61 The notion of thinking abstractly is appealing to me

62 I enjoy expressing my ideas in writing

63 I really enjoy a task that involves coming up with new solutions to problems

64 Creating original works

65I have confidence in my opinions, even if they are contrary to the general consensus

66 ProjMgt67 I properly planned tasks to achieve project goals

68 I demonstrated effective time management in completing tasks

69 I identified manageable sets of goals for my projects

70 RatingAcadAbil71 Writing ability

72 Creativity

73 Academic ability

74 Ability to think critically

75 Self-confidence (intellectual)

76 RatingLeadCollabSkills77 Public speaking ability

78 Leadership ability

79 Self-confidence (social)

80 RatingIndepVoice81 Self-understanding

82 Understanding of others

83 Ability to think and act on my own

84 RatingStriver85 Drive to achieve

86 Persistence

87 ResearchOrient88 I enjoy doing research

89 Research skills

90 Student Experience Scales (Post Only)91 4 point scales

92 PrepBreadth93 Study abroad experiences


4.09 4.04 -.06 -.09 318 3.95 3.87 -.08 * -.12 408 3.96 3.88 -.09 * -.13 329

3.87 3.79 -.07 -.08 318 3.76 3.74 -.01 -.02 407 3.83 3.75 -.09 -.09 329

4.19 4.16 -.04 -.05 318 4.16 4.06 -.10 * -.12 408 4.20 4.12 -.10 * -.12 329

4.21 4.15 -.06 -.07 318 3.94 3.81 -.12 * -.13 406 3.84 3.76 -.08 -.07 329

4.15 4.39 .23 *** .52 327 4.13 4.35 .23 *** .52 415 4.17 4.34 .16 *** .36 336

4.27 4.54 .25 *** .37 326 4.23 4.46 .23 *** .33 414 4.18 4.35 .16 *** .20 336

4.13 4.44 .30 *** .38 322 4.11 4.30 .19 *** .25 411 4.10 4.23 .13 ** .16 334

4.23 4.46 .23 *** .31 323 4.22 4.48 .26 *** .37 412 4.27 4.37 .08 .10 335

3.95 4.11 .15 ** .17 322 4.02 4.20 .20 *** .25 414 4.22 4.39 .17 *** .22 336

4.05 4.39 .35 *** .47 322 4.03 4.37 .34 *** .44 412 4.12 4.34 .22 *** .27 330

4.06 4.26 .19 *** .23 325 4.13 4.28 .16 *** .21 413 4.21 4.27 .03 .04 335

4.22 4.41 .20 *** .29 325 4.22 4.44 .22 *** .32 414 4.29 4.52 .20 *** .29 336

3.96 4.24 .29 *** .40 324 3.66 3.87 .17 ** .18 405 3.57 3.61 -.14 * -.15 311

4.20 4.47 .27 *** .37 324 4.16 4.44 .28 *** .35 413 4.20 4.42 .21 *** .29 334

4.23 4.40 .16 *** .19 325 4.13 4.38 .23 *** .27 413 4.23 4.44 .19 *** .24 334

3.54 3.69 .16 *** .23 317 3.56 3.73 .17 *** .24 407 3.56 3.63 .06 .08 327

3.76 3.82 .06 * .13 327 3.85 3.90 .06 * .12 416 4.07 4.09 .02 .05 336

3.72 3.81 .10 * .12 325 3.82 3.90 .08 * .10 411 4.05 4.11 .07 .09 333

3.58 3.65 .08 .11 325 3.83 3.93 .10 ** .13 410 4.21 4.22 .02 .03 334

4.07 4.16 .10 * .14 326 4.00 4.07 .07 .09 411 3.98 4.04 .06 .09 334

2.79 2.71 -.08 -.09 326 2.84 2.78 -.05 -.06 416 3.13 3.09 -.04 -.06 336

3.97 4.07 .11 ** .16 326 4.09 4.14 .06 .08 411 4.22 4.23 .01 .01 334

3.92 4.11 .19 *** .26 326 3.88 4.03 .15 *** .20 414 3.85 3.98 .11 ** .15 336

3.95 4.11 .15 ** .17 325 3.91 4.05 .14 ** .15 412 3.86 4.01 .12 * .13 336

3.75 4.02 .28 *** .28 325 3.67 3.87 .21 *** .20 414 3.63 3.82 .19 ** .18 336

4.06 4.20 .13 ** .16 326 4.05 4.19 .13 ** .15 413 4.07 4.11 .04 .04 335

3.80 3.90 .10 *** .28 327 3.81 3.91 .10 *** .29 416 3.97 4.06 .09 *** .24 336

3.58 3.76 .17 *** .26 327 3.73 3.86 .13 *** .19 414 4.02 4.10 .09 * .14 335

3.64 3.69 .03 .06 326 3.66 3.73 .07 * .11 414 4.03 4.12 .09 * .14 336

4.04 4.14 .09 ** .17 327 3.94 4.03 .09 *** .17 416 4.03 4.13 .10 *** .19 336

3.92 4.06 .13 *** .20 327 3.94 4.06 .12 *** .18 415 4.00 4.07 .07 .10 336

3.83 3.88 .05 .08 327 3.76 3.85 .09 ** .14 416 3.77 3.88 .11 ** .15 335

3.59 3.67 .08 ** .16 327 3.65 3.71 .06 ** .13 416 3.63 3.72 .09 *** .20 336

3.36 3.50 .14 *** .20 325 3.39 3.54 .15 *** .23 415 3.49 3.61 .13 *** .19 336

3.88 3.90 .03 .04 327 3.92 3.97 .05 .07 415 3.87 3.89 .02 .03 335

3.54 3.60 .06 .08 327 3.65 3.63 -.01 -.02 416 3.53 3.65 .12 ** .17 336

4.03 4.08 .04 .09 327 4.12 4.15 .03 .07 416 4.11 4.14 .02 .05 336

3.93 3.98 .05 .06 326 4.05 4.09 .04 .06 416 4.01 4.08 .07 .09 336

3.98 4.00 .02 .03 327 4.10 4.14 .04 .06 416 4.13 4.10 -.03 -.04 334

4.20 4.26 .06 .08 327 4.21 4.23 .01 .01 415 4.20 4.23 .03 .04 336

4.15 4.22 .07 * .13 327 4.04 4.06 .02 .04 416 3.96 4.00 .03 .05 336

4.16 4.24 .08 * .13 327 4.05 4.11 .06 .09 416 3.99 4.01 .02 .02 336

4.15 4.21 .06 .09 326 4.03 4.01 -.02 -.02 415 3.93 3.98 .05 .06 336

3.75 3.95 .19 *** .33 327 3.61 3.82 .22 *** .34 416 3.49 3.61 .12 *** .20 336

3.77 3.92 .15 *** .19 325 3.55 3.77 .22 *** .25 411 3.46 3.56 .10 * .13 334

3.73 3.98 .24 *** .35 324 3.66 3.88 .23 *** .31 416 3.52 3.65 .13 *** .18 335

2.15 323 2.35 413 2.39 332

1.94 139 2.41 241 2.52 213

7 4/27/2012 Table 4.8

Part 4, Page: 82

Line 1 94 Volunteer experiences

95 My non-academic interests/experiences

96 My job or internship experiences

97 Courses outside my major(s) and minor(s)

98 PrepDisc99 A junior or senior seminar

100 A research methods or skills course

101 Assistance from librarians or use of library services

102 Courses in my major(s) or minors(s)

103 PrepQuant104 Training in quantitative methods (statistics, tables, graphs, mathematical

modeling )105


106 5 point scales

107 MentorRel108 My mentor gave me helpful advice

109 My mentor gave me sufficient feedback

110 My mentor gave me useful feedback

111 My mentor effectively guided me through the capstone

112 My mentor and I communicated well

113 I was comfortable working with my faculty mentor

114 I had access to my mentor when I needed it

115 My mentor gave me timely feedback

116 My mentor provided helpful subject matter expertise

117 My mentor had reasonable expectations for my performance

118 My mentor met with me regularly

119 My mentor was genuinely interested in my project

120 My mentor encouraged my independence

121 My mentor was experienced in capstone advising

122 CapContDev123 Ability to think critically and analytically

124 Ability to write effectively

125 Skill in the interpreting of data, evidence, texts, and/or works

126 Ability to interpret primary literature

127 Acquiring research related skills

128 Ability to think creatively

129 Having confidence in my own abilities

130 Managing a large project

131 Ability to make an effective oral presentation

132 Learning ethical conduct in my field

133 Learning effectively on my own

134 CapMoreEngaging135 I worked harder on my capstone than on my regular coursework

136 My capstone was more intellectually challenging than my regular coursework

137 I developed more academically from my capstone than from a regular course

138 CapSuccessful139 My capstone has better prepared me for a job or graduate school


141 My capstone has helped me clarify my career or graduate school objectives

142 My capstone had a positive influence on my personal growth, attitudes, and values


144 Understanding of my discipline improved

145 Overall, I had a good capstone experience


1.83 265 2.07 347 2.07 269

2.36 297 2.81 386 2.99 317

2.61 276 2.33 341 2.25 269

1.95 319 2.10 404 2.20 327

3.00 324 2.93 413 2.83 332

3.06 286 2.94 370 2.81 287

3.05 285 3.04 370 2.46 258

2.27 296 2.38 387 2.36 299

3.52 324 3.40 410 3.49 331

2.82 313 2.51 381 1.71 239

2.77 303 2.56 359 1.50 202

2.87 308 2.48 370 1.88 233

4.53 309 4.32 392 4.41 316

4.54 309 4.35 392 4.48 316

4.53 172 4.11 208 4.35 166

4.61 173 4.24 208 4.45 166

4.41 172 4.10 208 4.24 165

4.49 173 4.25 208 4.36 164

4.61 309 4.41 392 4.45 316

4.44 309 4.27 392 4.36 316

4.49 172 4.13 208 4.33 166

4.48 173 4.12 208 4.32 165

4.55 173 4.34 208 4.41 166

4.51 173 4.14 208 4.13 166

4.62 309 4.39 392 4.44 316

4.58 173 4.41 208 4.54 166

4.53 171 4.35 208 4.23 166

4.21 312 4.12 397 4.04 315

4.36 311 4.29 397 4.27 315

4.22 311 4.19 397 4.36 314

4.33 311 4.23 396 4.03 315

4.28 311 4.14 396 3.97 313

4.36 311 4.29 397 3.88 315

3.95 310 3.99 397 4.36 315

4.31 312 4.32 396 4.25 314

4.45 311 4.49 397 4.47 315

4.21 311 3.61 397 3.38 314

3.45 312 3.57 397 3.14 315

4.40 311 4.25 397 4.31 315

4.19 313 4.22 399 4.19 315

4.31 312 4.39 398 4.30 315

4.18 312 4.22 398 4.23 315

4.09 313 4.06 399 4.03 315

4.10 313 3.99 399 3.99 315

4.11 312 3.92 399 3.75 315

4.27 312 4.22 398 4.31 315

3.73 313 3.47 399 3.45 315

4.07 312 4.08 399 4.18 313

4.28 312 4.28 398 4.29 315

4.27 312 4.15 399 4.18 314

4.36 312 4.21 399 4.23 314

8 4/27/2012 Table 4.8

Part 4, Page: 83

Line 1 146 Seeing the connection between my intended career and how it affects society

147 My capstone was more engaging than my regular coursework

148 I created new knowledge in my discipline

149 Faculty Scales [1]150 5 point scales

151 CommunSkills152 Writes in a clear, articulate manner

153 Writes in a well-organized manner

154 Writes without distracting errors in spelling grammar, punctuation, usage, etc.

155 Delivers an effective poster presentation

156 Delivers an effective oral presentation

157 EffProjectMgt158 Properly plans tasks to achieve project goals

159 Demonstrates effective time management in completing tasks

160 Demonstrates accurate awareness of own abilities and limitations

161 Identifies a manageable set of project goals

162 Persists when faced with conceptual and practical difficulties

163 Uses feedback to assess performance

164 Locates appropriate source material

165 Demonstrates appropriate confidence in own intellectual ability

166 IntelEngagement167 Demonstrates intellectual curiosity

168 Shows originality

169 Shows evidence of independent thinking

170Synthesizes information to produce insights that expand the student's understanding

171 Actively pursues learning opportunities

172 Asks probing questions


174 CrThinkSkills175 Develops convincing arguments to support conclusions

176 Logically interprets and evaluates main points of source material

177 Supports arguments with appropriate evidence

178 Uses disciplinary knowledge and methods appropriately

179 Addresses opposing arguments or alternative explanations

180 Faculty Scales ‐ Post Only181 StudentTopicMotiv

182 When the project ended, how enthusiastic was the student about the topic?

183 When the project started, how enthusiastic was the student about the topic?

184To what extent did the student participate in developing / refining his /her capstone topic?

185 MentorInstruction186 I gave useful feedback to this student

187 I gave this student useful feedback

188 I gave timely feedback to this student

189 I gave this student useful advice

190 I effectively guided the student through the capstone

191 I gave this student sufficient access

192 I provided helpful subject matter expertise for this student's project

193 I met with this student regularly

194 MentorRapport195 I felt comfortable working with this student


3.51 311 3.46 397 3.37 315

4.38 313 4.28 399 4.29 315

4.01 313 3.86 398 3.89 315

3.80 4.15 .24 *** .29 208 3.87 4.03 .24 *** .29 237 3.91 4.12 .17 * .22 198

3.67 3.87 .22 ** .22 200 3.73 3.84 .23 ** .23 234 3.79 3.98 .09 .10 193

3.73 3.93 .24 ** .23 199 3.77 3.95 .18 * .19 234 3.75 3.97 .13 .15 193

3.82 3.89 .15 .14 203 3.81 3.81 .09 .08 233 3.77 3.92 .17 * .18 193

3.72 4.22 .49 ** .49 74 3.83 4.23 .44 * .63 30 3.91 4.25 .67 * .94 37

3.71 4.15 .46 *** .49 165 3.72 4.07 .35 *** .38 201 3.87 4.11 .23 * .26 167

3.81 4.24 .34 *** .45 213 3.95 4.09 .27 *** .40 240 3.96 4.11 .13 * .19 205

3.75 4.04 .35 *** .36 210 3.75 3.88 .24 ** .24 235 3.77 3.91 .11 .10 204

3.71 3.93 .28 *** .26 209 3.69 3.79 .27 ** .23 234 3.76 3.79 -.09 -.08 203

3.62 4.02 .48 *** .46 203 3.69 3.84 .25 *** .28 222 3.75 3.96 .14 .14 198

3.73 4.04 .34 *** .35 209 3.84 4.00 .25 *** .29 233 3.77 3.98 .13 .13 205

3.87 4.20 .38 *** .35 209 3.90 4.21 .44 *** .46 229 3.92 4.19 .21 * .23 195

3.86 4.17 .38 *** .35 198 3.93 4.09 .22 ** .26 232 3.99 4.13 .08 .08 194

3.92 4.14 .27 *** .30 205 3.98 4.04 .15 * .17 223 3.76 4.05 .31 *** .39 198

3.57 3.96 .42 *** .42 204 3.63 3.80 .29 *** .29 231 3.73 3.94 .13 .14 200

3.73 4.14 .36 *** .44 213 3.93 4.05 .17 ** .24 239 3.97 4.14 .24 *** .36 205

3.87 4.16 .34 *** .31 212 4.03 4.12 .11 .13 238 4.01 4.20 .21 ** .27 202

3.54 3.95 .46 *** .44 207 3.65 3.84 .19 * .20 233 3.71 4.03 .38 *** .42 200

3.75 4.16 .43 *** .43 213 3.88 4.08 .26 *** .28 236 3.92 4.15 .27 *** .34 201

3.65 4.04 .50 *** .49 195 3.72 3.98 .41 *** .41 225 3.69 4.01 .35 *** .37 198

3.88 4.03 .23 ** .24 208 3.95 3.95 .06 .08 235 3.86 4.02 .16 .17 199

3.53 3.93 .44 *** .41 213 3.74 3.80 .13 .14 236 3.67 3.88 .22 * .23 202

3.59 4.00 .39 *** .40 201 3.71 3.84 .16 .15 215 3.73 3.91 .15 .17 186

3.74 4.19 .38 *** .48 208 3.83 4.00 .29 *** .40 236 3.82 4.03 .26 *** .38 2013.63 4.02 .49 *** .50 196 3.69 3.88 .25 *** .28 232 3.73 3.87 .13 .16 196

3.76 4.03 .32 *** .35 201 3.83 4.02 .33 *** .39 226 3.71 4.02 .39 *** .47 196

3.82 4.13 .39 *** .43 199 3.91 4.03 .22 *** .27 233 3.83 3.97 .18 * .22 197

3.88 4.14 .32 *** .32 201 3.78 4.06 .36 *** .42 225 3.69 3.97 .36 *** .41 196

3.48 3.91 .54 *** .62 193 3.52 3.66 .23 ** .22 228 3.39 3.62 .23 * .22 190

4.20 237 4.24 232 4.35 188

4.34 236 4.25 232 4.43 185

4.25 237 4.31 232 4.44 188

4.00 237 4.15 231 4.19 188

4.49 135 4.48 131 4.57 105

4.54 135 4.49 131 4.65 105

4.48 90 4.45 83 4.58 67

4.53 135 4.52 131 4.66 105

4.53 135 4.59 131 4.62 105

4.36 135 4.31 131 4.46 105

4.64 135 4.67 131 4.77 105

4.28 135 4.31 131 4.34 104

4.55 135 4.44 131 4.48 104

4.58 135 4.48 131 4.60 105

4.67 135 4.58 130 4.67 105

9 4/27/2012 Table 4.8

Part 4, Page: 84

Line 1 196 Overall, I felt comfortable supervising this capstone

197 I was interested in this student's project

198 I communicated well with this student

199 I had reasonable expectations for the student’s capstone performance

200 I encouraged this student to work independently

201 Independent Summative202 Independence: Showing autonomy and initiative in thought and actions

203 Intellectual Engagement: Demonstrating an interest in learning

204 Self‐understanding: Developing an awareness of self (skills, abilities, interests)

205 Project Management: Conceiving and managing a project


207 Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Evaluating and constructing arguments with evidence

208 Communication: Presenting ideas effectively (written, oral, and other forms)

209 Post Graduate Plans (Advanced degrees planned during lifetime)210 GradProfSchl211 AdvDeg212 bachelors

213 masters

214 law (JD)

215 doctorate

[1] Some respondents may not have completed some individual questions, resulting

[2] Means for subgroups on this item have been omitted due to a small number of us[3] For simplicity only the Ns shown for the pre-faculty data are shown. For "All" dat


4.63 134 4.53 128 4.61 104

4.46 135 4.28 130 4.47 105

4.53 135 4.45 130 4.66 105

4.52 135 4.51 130 4.59 105

4.65 135 4.55 130 4.62 105

4.12 234 4.06 231 4.11 186

4.19 234 4.13 230 4.24 187

4.16 230 3.96 230 4.14 187

4.21 234 4.10 231 4.08 186

4.27 233 4.05 231 4.05 186

4.10 234 3.96 228 4.04 184

4.21 236 4.04 230 4.17 182

Pre Post Chg Pre Post Chg Pre Post Chg 77% 72% -5% 58% 54% -4% 59% 56% -3% 92% 90% -2% 92% 90% -2% 86% 86% 0%

9% 8% -1% 9% 10% 1% 18% 22% 4%42% 44% 3% 46% 50% 4% 53% 53% 0%0% 0% 0% 9% 8% -2% 6% 6% 1%50% 47% -2% 35% 32% -3% 23% 19% -4%

10 4/27/2012 Table 4.8

Part 4, Page: 85

Table 4.10: Pre/Post Capstone Change: Changes in S

Combined 2009/10 and 2010/11 DataExel Conditional Formatting color scales have been used tohighlight variation within each scale row.

Line 1 2 Student Scales [1]3 5 point scale

4 ExpectGoodCapstone5 My capstone will lead to a better understanding of my skills, abilities and interests

6 My ability to think critically and analytically will improve

7 My understanding of my discipline will improve

8 My capstone will better prepare me for a job or graduate school

9 My capstone will help me clarify my career or graduate school objectives

10 My oral presentation skills will improve

11 My writing skills will improve

12 My capstone will be more engaging than my regular course work

13 I expect to create new knowledge in my discipline

14 My capstone will be intellectually challenging

15 4 point scales

16 CivicOrient17 Volunteering in my community

18 Helping others who are in difficulty

19 Becoming a community leader

20 Influencing social values

21 Integrating spirituality into my life

22 Developing a meaningful philosophy of life

23 StatusCareerOrient24 Becoming accomplished in my field of expertise

25 Working in a prestigious occupation

26 Making a lot of money

27 Obtaining recognition from my colleagues for contributions to my special field

28 HighOrderCogn

29Synthesizing and organizing ideas, information, or experiences into new, more complex interpretations and relationships


31Analyzing the basic elements of an idea, experience, or theory, such as examining a particular case or situation in depth and considering its components

32 Applying theories or concepts to practical problems or in new situations

33 MultPerspectives

34Tried to better understand someone else’s views by imagining how an issue looks from his or her perspective

35 Examined the strengths and weaknesses of your own views on a topic or issue


37 Learned something that changed the way you understand an issue or concept

38 Put together ideas or concepts from different courses

39 5 point scales

40 SatisInstr41 Quality of instruction in my major field

42 Overall quality of instruction

43 Overall college experience

Results by student graduating overall GPA for school(s): Results by sudent genderAll All

All‐ 2.99 and under All‐ 3‐3.49 All‐ 3.5 and up All‐ Males All‐ FemalesPre Post D Sig. eff N Pre Post D Sig. eff N Pre Post D Sig. eff N Pre Post D Sig. eff N Pre Post D Sig. eff N

4.22 437 4.23 226 4.18 538 4.17 349 4.21 852

4.35 437 4.35 226 4.29 538 4.31 349 4.33 852

4.28 436 4.29 226 4.24 538 4.20 349 4.29 851

4.36 437 4.37 226 4.38 537 4.34 349 4.39 851

4.12 435 4.16 225 4.10 535 4.15 348 4.11 847

3.81 437 3.85 226 3.68 537 3.78 349 3.75 851

4.06 436 4.07 226 3.95 537 3.97 348 4.03 851

4.19 437 4.18 226 4.16 538 4.11 349 4.20 852

4.49 437 4.49 226 4.42 537 4.43 349 4.47 851

3.99 435 4.11 225 3.95 538 3.97 348 4.01 850

4.49 436 4.40 226 4.58 538 4.46 349 4.54 851

2.85 2.84 -.01 -.02 451 2.86 2.80 -.05 -.11 235 2.82 2.87 .05 ** .12 543 2.75 2.75 .00 .00 356 2.87 2.89 .01 .03 873

2.80 2.78 -.02 -.03 449 2.78 2.73 -.04 -.06 232 2.78 2.81 .02 .04 543 2.52 2.55 .03 .03 354 2.90 2.88 -.02 -.03 870

3.20 3.20 .00 -.01 450 3.26 3.10 -.16 *** -.23 234 3.22 3.25 .03 .04 542 3.05 3.03 -.02 -.03 353 3.29 3.27 -.02 -.03 873

2.70 2.69 .00 -.01 449 2.66 2.62 -.04 -.05 234 2.55 2.63 .09 ** .11 542 2.63 2.64 .01 .01 355 2.62 2.66 .04 .05 870

2.91 2.89 -.02 -.03 451 2.95 2.96 .01 .01 235 2.77 2.84 .08 * .10 543 2.82 2.84 .02 .03 356 2.87 2.90 .03 .04 873

2.29 2.31 .02 .02 448 2.34 2.28 -.05 -.07 235 2.41 2.42 .01 .01 542 2.21 2.17 -.03 -.03 356 2.42 2.43 .01 .02 869

3.18 3.17 -.01 -.01 450 3.14 3.13 -.02 -.03 235 3.20 3.27 .06 .08 543 3.29 3.29 -.01 -.01 356 3.14 3.17 .03 .04 872

2.62 2.60 -.02 -.04 451 2.77 2.68 -.09 * -.17 235 2.52 2.53 .01 .02 543 2.72 2.68 -.04 -.09 356 2.56 2.55 -.01 -.03 873

3.40 3.31 -.08 * -.12 451 3.45 3.28 -.18 *** -.25 235 3.45 3.35 -.10 *** -.15 543 3.41 3.31 -.10 * -.13 356 3.44 3.33 -.11 *** -.17 873

2.28 2.27 -.01 -.01 451 2.47 2.47 -.01 -.01 234 2.08 2.12 .04 .06 540 2.40 2.40 .00 .00 353 2.16 2.17 .02 .02 872

2.23 2.25 .03 .04 451 2.48 2.43 -.06 -.08 235 2.03 2.07 .03 .05 543 2.33 2.34 .00 .00 356 2.13 2.15 .02 .03 873

2.58 2.56 -.01 -.02 450 2.69 2.57 -.10 -.11 233 2.52 2.57 .04 .05 542 2.74 2.66 -.08 -.09 354 2.51 2.53 .02 .03 871

3.26 3.19 -.07 * -.10 436 3.21 3.20 -.02 -.02 227 3.24 3.20 -.04 -.06 536 3.18 3.22 .05 .07 348 3.27 3.19 -.08 *** -.12 851

3.30 3.39 .09 .10 436 3.25 3.32 .07 .07 227 3.35 3.43 .08 * .09 535 3.25 3.35 .11 * .12 348 3.34 3.41 .07 * .07 850

3.16 3.14 -.02 -.02 436 3.09 3.14 .06 .06 227 3.10 3.13 .03 .03 536 3.07 3.18 .12 * .11 348 3.14 3.12 -.02 -.02 851

3.30 3.20 -.10 * -.10 436 3.26 3.28 .01 .01 227 3.23 3.14 -.08 -.08 536 3.23 3.25 .03 .03 348 3.28 3.17 -.11 ** -.11 851

3.29 3.04 -.25 *** -.25 434 3.24 3.05 -.20 * -.18 226 3.26 3.08 -.18 *** -.18 536 3.16 3.10 -.07 -.07 347 3.31 3.04 -.27 *** -.26 849

3.08 2.83 -.25 *** -.39 437 3.00 2.86 -.13 ** -.19 226 3.02 2.85 -.18 *** -.28 537 2.99 2.80 -.20 *** -.31 348 3.06 2.86 -.19 *** -.30 852

3.05 2.70 -.33 *** -.32 437 2.97 2.77 -.18 * -.17 225 2.99 2.76 -.24 *** -.23 535 2.98 2.68 -.27 *** -.26 347 3.02 2.77 -.26 *** -.25 850

3.00 3.00 .00 .00 437 2.92 3.06 .17 * .16 225 2.90 3.01 .10 * .11 535 3.05 2.99 -.07 -.07 347 2.90 3.03 .14 *** .14 850

2.96 2.46 -.49 *** -.45 437 2.88 2.47 -.40 *** -.34 226 2.90 2.47 -.42 *** -.40 537 2.75 2.36 -.38 *** -.35 348 2.98 2.51 -.47 *** -.42 852

3.12 3.06 -.07 -.08 437 3.07 2.99 -.07 -.08 226 3.10 3.04 -.07 -.07 537 3.04 2.96 -.10 -.11 348 3.12 3.07 -.06 -.06 852

3.27 2.93 -.34 *** -.33 437 3.16 2.99 -.16 * -.16 226 3.21 2.97 -.25 *** -.24 537 3.14 2.98 -.16 ** -.16 348 3.25 2.94 -.31 *** -.31 852

4.43 4.39 -.04 -.08 437 4.33 4.32 -.01 -.01 227 4.53 4.54 .01 .01 539 4.41 4.38 -.03 -.06 349 4.47 4.47 -.01 -.01 854

4.55 4.48 -.07 * -.11 435 4.42 4.41 -.02 -.02 227 4.64 4.64 .00 .00 539 4.52 4.47 -.04 -.06 349 4.58 4.56 -.03 -.04 852

4.33 4.31 -.03 -.04 435 4.24 4.29 .04 .05 227 4.49 4.49 .01 .02 538 4.33 4.33 -.01 -.01 347 4.40 4.41 .01 .01 853

4.40 4.39 -.02 -.03 437 4.32 4.26 -.04 -.05 225 4.47 4.49 .01 .02 539 4.38 4.32 -.05 -.07 349 4.44 4.44 .01 .01 852

11 4/27/2012 Table 4.8

Part 4, Page: 86

Line 1 44 SatisSuppSrv45 Computer facilities and services

46 Library facilities and services

47 Facilities/equipment in my major field

48 ExhibScholarlySkills49 I located appropriate source material

50 I used disciplinary knowledge and methods appropriately

51 I supported my arguments with appropriate evidence

52 I showed originality

53 I synthesized information to produce insights that expanded my understanding

54 I demonstrated good communication skills

55 I showed evidence of independent thinking

56 I showed skill with quantitative reasoning

57 I persisted when faced with conceptual and practical difficulties

58 I used feedback to assess my performance

59 Integrated ideas or information from various sources

60 NeedCognLite61 The notion of thinking abstractly is appealing to me

62 I enjoy expressing my ideas in writing

63 I really enjoy a task that involves coming up with new solutions to problems

64 Creating original works

65I have confidence in my opinions, even if they are contrary to the general consensus

66 ProjMgt67 I properly planned tasks to achieve project goals

68 I demonstrated effective time management in completing tasks

69 I identified manageable sets of goals for my projects

70 RatingAcadAbil71 Writing ability

72 Creativity

73 Academic ability

74 Ability to think critically

75 Self-confidence (intellectual)

76 RatingLeadCollabSkills77 Public speaking ability

78 Leadership ability

79 Self-confidence (social)

80 RatingIndepVoice81 Self-understanding

82 Understanding of others

83 Ability to think and act on my own

84 RatingStriver85 Drive to achieve

86 Persistence

87 ResearchOrient88 I enjoy doing research

89 Research skills

90 Student Experience Scales (Post Only)91 4 point scales

92 PrepBreadth93 Study abroad experiences


3.99 3.89 -.10 ** -.15 437 4.04 3.91 -.12 * -.16 227 3.97 3.96 -.02 -.03 539 3.98 3.95 -.02 -.03 349 3.99 3.91 -.09 *** -.13 854

3.77 3.72 -.06 -.05 437 3.86 3.79 -.05 -.05 227 3.82 3.78 -.04 -.04 538 3.79 3.80 .02 .02 349 3.82 3.75 -.07 * -.08 853

4.17 4.08 -.10 * -.12 437 4.22 4.06 -.17 ** -.20 227 4.17 4.14 -.03 -.04 539 4.22 4.18 -.03 -.04 349 4.17 4.07 -.10 *** -.13 854

4.02 3.88 -.15 ** -.15 435 4.03 3.88 -.13 -.13 227 3.92 3.94 .01 .01 539 3.92 3.87 -.05 -.05 349 4.00 3.92 -.08 * -.09 852

4.14 4.33 .19 *** .42 451 4.02 4.26 .23 *** .49 235 4.22 4.40 .18 *** .38 542 4.14 4.27 .12 *** .23 356 4.16 4.38 .22 *** .51 872

4.21 4.42 .20 *** .29 450 4.08 4.41 .33 *** .45 235 4.29 4.48 .17 *** .24 540 4.18 4.41 .22 *** .29 356 4.24 4.46 .21 *** .30 869

4.13 4.27 .14 *** .19 446 3.93 4.21 .27 *** .31 234 4.20 4.41 .20 *** .27 537 4.07 4.23 .15 ** .18 355 4.15 4.36 .21 *** .28 862

4.24 4.42 .18 *** .24 447 4.09 4.36 .26 *** .34 234 4.31 4.46 .14 *** .18 539 4.25 4.34 .08 .09 354 4.24 4.46 .21 *** .30 866

4.06 4.20 .15 *** .19 449 4.04 4.15 .11 * .14 233 4.10 4.29 .19 *** .24 539 4.13 4.20 .07 .09 355 4.05 4.24 .20 *** .24 866

4.06 4.33 .28 *** .34 445 3.90 4.25 .36 *** .48 231 4.16 4.44 .27 *** .36 538 4.09 4.29 .22 *** .25 349 4.07 4.39 .32 *** .43 865

4.10 4.24 .14 *** .18 449 4.03 4.15 .09 .10 233 4.23 4.36 .12 *** .17 541 4.12 4.15 .02 .03 356 4.15 4.33 .16 *** .22 867

4.22 4.42 .20 *** .27 450 4.14 4.35 .20 *** .29 235 4.31 4.52 .21 *** .30 539 4.29 4.41 .10 ** .14 356 4.22 4.47 .24 *** .35 868

3.75 3.95 .14 ** .16 439 3.75 3.91 .12 .13 232 3.73 3.94 .11 * .12 515 3.87 3.96 .03 .03 343 3.69 3.93 .16 *** .18 843

4.13 4.44 .30 *** .40 449 4.04 4.25 .21 *** .23 233 4.30 4.49 .18 *** .25 539 4.19 4.34 .14 ** .17 354 4.19 4.46 .27 *** .36 867

4.18 4.37 .17 *** .21 449 4.05 4.29 .22 *** .23 232 4.28 4.44 .16 *** .19 541 4.08 4.26 .13 ** .15 353 4.25 4.44 .19 *** .23 869

3.58 3.68 .09 * .12 437 3.38 3.62 .25 *** .33 225 3.60 3.69 .09 ** .13 537 3.43 3.59 .17 *** .22 347 3.60 3.70 .10 *** .14 852

3.87 3.92 .05 * .10 451 3.89 3.96 .07 * .13 235 3.87 3.91 .04 * .09 543 4.03 4.07 .04 .08 356 3.81 3.87 .05 *** .12 873

3.89 3.91 .03 .04 446 3.84 3.97 .13 * .16 233 3.83 3.92 .09 ** .12 539 4.08 4.19 .12 ** .15 353 3.76 3.82 .06 * .07 865

3.81 3.89 .08 * .11 446 3.67 3.78 .10 .12 234 3.96 4.01 .05 .06 538 3.80 3.88 .08 * .11 354 3.87 3.93 .06 * .08 864

4.03 4.13 .11 ** .15 447 4.05 4.09 .04 .05 234 3.99 4.05 .07 * .09 539 4.22 4.25 .04 .05 354 3.93 4.02 .09 *** .12 866

2.88 2.85 -.02 -.03 451 2.97 2.94 -.03 -.04 235 2.84 2.79 -.05 -.06 542 3.01 2.93 -.08 -.09 355 2.83 2.81 -.02 -.02 873

4.09 4.12 .04 .05 447 4.20 4.28 .08 .12 234 4.05 4.10 .05 .07 539 4.31 4.35 .04 .06 354 4.00 4.06 .06 * .08 866

3.88 4.03 .15 *** .20 450 3.67 3.83 .14 * .17 235 4.03 4.14 .10 ** .14 541 3.75 3.83 .09 * .11 356 3.98 4.13 .14 *** .20 870

3.90 4.03 .13 ** .13 447 3.68 3.89 .19 ** .19 235 4.09 4.15 .05 .06 540 3.78 3.85 .06 .06 354 4.01 4.14 .12 *** .14 868

3.67 3.91 .25 *** .24 449 3.43 3.66 .22 ** .19 235 3.88 4.04 .16 *** .17 541 3.47 3.68 .23 *** .20 356 3.82 4.02 .20 *** .20 869

4.07 4.17 .09 * .10 449 3.91 3.98 .05 .06 235 4.14 4.24 .09 * .10 540 3.99 4.01 -.01 -.01 356 4.10 4.23 .12 *** .14 868

3.82 3.89 .07 *** .21 451 3.64 3.73 .09 *** .24 235 3.98 4.10 .12 *** .35 543 3.96 4.05 .08 *** .22 356 3.81 3.92 .10 *** .30 873

3.73 3.84 .11 *** .16 449 3.47 3.56 .09 .11 233 3.93 4.09 .16 *** .26 543 3.74 3.87 .13 *** .18 354 3.78 3.91 .13 *** .20 871

3.81 3.84 .02 .03 449 3.76 3.87 .10 * .16 235 3.74 3.82 .09 ** .14 542 3.89 3.94 .05 .07 356 3.72 3.80 .07 *** .12 870

3.88 3.97 .08 *** .16 451 3.51 3.59 .08 .13 235 4.31 4.41 .10 *** .19 543 4.04 4.08 .04 .08 356 3.99 4.10 .11 *** .20 873

3.94 4.00 .06 * .10 451 3.77 3.94 .17 *** .23 235 4.03 4.16 .14 *** .20 542 4.12 4.23 .11 ** .17 356 3.88 3.99 .12 *** .17 872

3.73 3.80 .08 * .11 451 3.66 3.69 .03 .03 234 3.89 4.02 .13 *** .20 543 4.01 4.10 .09 * .12 355 3.69 3.79 .10 *** .14 873

3.65 3.71 .07 ** .14 451 3.72 3.75 .03 .06 235 3.58 3.69 .11 *** .25 543 3.82 3.89 .07 ** .16 356 3.56 3.64 .08 *** .17 873

3.38 3.50 .12 *** .17 450 3.42 3.52 .09 .12 234 3.45 3.62 .18 *** .27 542 3.64 3.77 .13 *** .19 354 3.33 3.47 .14 *** .21 872

3.92 3.97 .05 .08 450 3.86 3.90 .03 .05 234 3.91 3.94 .03 .05 543 4.06 4.09 .02 .04 355 3.84 3.88 .05 * .07 872

3.64 3.67 .03 .04 451 3.88 3.84 -.04 -.05 234 3.39 3.50 .11 *** .15 543 3.75 3.80 .07 .08 356 3.51 3.55 .05 .06 872

4.12 4.14 .02 .04 451 4.13 4.13 .00 .01 235 4.05 4.11 .06 ** .12 543 4.14 4.17 .03 .06 356 4.07 4.11 .03 * .07 873

4.03 4.07 .04 .06 451 4.08 4.09 .00 .01 235 3.94 4.01 .07 * .09 542 4.09 4.12 .04 .04 356 3.97 4.02 .05 * .07 872

4.10 4.10 .00 .00 450 4.11 4.12 .00 .01 235 4.01 4.05 .03 .05 542 4.01 4.08 .07 .09 356 4.09 4.08 -.01 -.01 871

4.21 4.23 .01 .02 450 4.20 4.20 .00 -.01 234 4.19 4.26 .07 * .10 543 4.31 4.30 -.01 -.02 355 4.16 4.21 .06 * .08 872

4.00 4.04 .04 .06 451 3.89 3.86 -.03 -.04 235 4.17 4.24 .07 *** .14 543 4.02 4.03 .01 .02 356 4.07 4.12 .05 ** .10 873

4.01 4.06 .04 .06 451 3.79 3.79 -.01 -.01 235 4.26 4.34 .08 ** .13 543 3.99 4.01 .01 .01 356 4.11 4.18 .07 ** .10 873

3.99 4.02 .04 .05 450 3.98 3.94 -.04 -.05 234 4.08 4.14 .06 * .11 542 4.05 4.05 .02 .03 355 4.02 4.06 .04 .06 871

3.57 3.75 .18 *** .27 451 3.45 3.61 .16 *** .26 235 3.68 3.87 .19 *** .33 543 3.58 3.76 .18 *** .30 356 3.61 3.78 .18 *** .29 873

3.54 3.71 .18 *** .20 447 3.50 3.63 .13 * .15 234 3.61 3.78 .18 *** .22 538 3.57 3.71 .15 *** .18 354 3.56 3.74 .17 *** .21 865

3.61 3.78 .17 *** .23 448 3.41 3.60 .20 *** .28 234 3.75 3.96 .21 *** .32 542 3.59 3.81 .22 *** .30 355 3.65 3.83 .18 *** .27 869

2.34 445 2.32 231 2.32 541 2.25 351 2.36 866

2.49 233 2.26 106 2.28 338 2.27 184 2.38 493

12 4/27/2012 Table 4.8

Part 4, Page: 87

Line 1 94 Volunteer experiences

95 My non-academic interests/experiences

96 My job or internship experiences

97 Courses outside my major(s) and minor(s)

98 PrepDisc99 A junior or senior seminar

100 A research methods or skills course

101 Assistance from librarians or use of library services

102 Courses in my major(s) or minors(s)

103 PrepQuant104 Training in quantitative methods (statistics, tables, graphs, mathematical

modeling )105


106 5 point scales

107 MentorRel108 My mentor gave me helpful advice

109 My mentor gave me sufficient feedback

110 My mentor gave me useful feedback

111 My mentor effectively guided me through the capstone

112 My mentor and I communicated well

113 I was comfortable working with my faculty mentor

114 I had access to my mentor when I needed it

115 My mentor gave me timely feedback

116 My mentor provided helpful subject matter expertise

117 My mentor had reasonable expectations for my performance

118 My mentor met with me regularly

119 My mentor was genuinely interested in my project

120 My mentor encouraged my independence

121 My mentor was experienced in capstone advising

122 CapContDev123 Ability to think critically and analytically

124 Ability to write effectively

125 Skill in the interpreting of data, evidence, texts, and/or works

126 Ability to interpret primary literature

127 Acquiring research related skills

128 Ability to think creatively

129 Having confidence in my own abilities

130 Managing a large project

131 Ability to make an effective oral presentation

132 Learning ethical conduct in my field

133 Learning effectively on my own

134 CapMoreEngaging135 I worked harder on my capstone than on my regular coursework

136 My capstone was more intellectually challenging than my regular coursework

137 I developed more academically from my capstone than from a regular course

138 CapSuccessful139 My capstone has better prepared me for a job or graduate school


141 My capstone has helped me clarify my career or graduate school objectives

142 My capstone had a positive influence on my personal growth, attitudes, and values


144 Understanding of my discipline improved

145 Overall, I had a good capstone experience


2.00 367 2.12 182 2.01 469 1.84 279 2.10 739

2.71 420 2.82 217 2.71 503 2.71 324 2.73 816

2.50 366 2.31 175 2.49 482 2.41 283 2.49 740

2.09 434 2.03 225 2.13 536 2.05 345 2.12 850

2.90 445 2.96 232 2.89 541 2.85 352 2.93 866

2.89 388 2.93 212 2.90 472 2.86 312 2.93 760

2.89 386 3.04 210 2.74 442 2.75 316 2.90 722

2.36 405 2.38 214 2.26 495 2.26 320 2.35 794

3.43 441 3.44 232 3.53 541 3.46 351 3.48 863

2.49 386 2.46 213 2.34 469 2.43 314 2.41 754

2.43 356 2.40 201 2.34 429 2.37 293 2.39 693

2.57 380 2.53 208 2.38 458 2.51 308 2.46 738

4.38 425 4.34 219 4.46 513 4.38 334 4.42 823

4.42 425 4.41 219 4.48 513 4.42 334 4.46 823

4.28 228 4.29 112 4.32 271 4.32 174 4.29 437

4.42 228 4.38 113 4.42 271 4.44 174 4.40 438

4.16 226 4.22 113 4.26 271 4.20 173 4.22 437

4.26 228 4.38 113 4.41 269 4.40 174 4.33 436

4.43 425 4.41 219 4.56 513 4.46 334 4.49 823

4.34 425 4.24 219 4.42 513 4.33 334 4.36 823

4.27 228 4.23 113 4.34 270 4.28 174 4.30 437

4.31 228 4.29 113 4.27 270 4.28 174 4.30 437

4.42 228 4.35 113 4.45 271 4.45 174 4.41 438

4.27 228 4.20 113 4.18 271 4.20 174 4.22 438

4.45 425 4.39 219 4.52 513 4.45 334 4.48 823

4.51 228 4.42 113 4.52 271 4.53 174 4.49 438

4.36 228 4.30 112 4.39 270 4.36 174 4.36 436

4.15 428 4.08 221 4.10 517 4.05 334 4.14 832

4.35 428 4.17 221 4.31 516 4.22 334 4.33 831

4.19 427 4.14 220 4.28 516 4.09 333 4.28 830

4.22 427 4.12 221 4.17 515 4.19 334 4.18 829

4.09 427 4.12 220 4.07 515 4.05 333 4.10 829

4.20 428 4.12 221 4.13 516 4.09 334 4.18 831

4.10 428 4.08 221 4.10 515 4.07 333 4.11 831

4.33 428 4.19 221 4.30 515 4.24 334 4.31 830

4.48 428 4.31 221 4.49 516 4.35 334 4.50 831

3.84 428 3.78 220 3.60 516 3.64 333 3.76 831

3.45 428 3.56 221 3.36 517 3.34 334 3.47 832

4.38 428 4.24 221 4.29 516 4.24 334 4.35 831

4.16 428 4.25 221 4.13 520 4.15 337 4.17 832

4.32 427 4.37 221 4.26 518 4.25 336 4.33 830

4.15 427 4.29 219 4.15 519 4.17 335 4.18 830

4.02 428 4.11 221 3.99 520 4.06 337 4.01 832

4.01 428 4.02 221 4.05 520 3.97 337 4.05 832

3.88 428 3.84 221 3.99 519 3.92 337 3.92 831

4.25 427 4.23 220 4.29 519 4.19 337 4.29 829

3.52 428 3.63 221 3.57 520 3.57 337 3.56 832

4.11 428 4.19 221 4.07 517 4.04 335 4.13 831

4.29 427 4.26 221 4.28 519 4.21 337 4.31 830

4.18 428 4.12 220 4.22 519 4.17 336 4.20 831

4.19 428 4.21 221 4.32 518 4.19 337 4.28 830

13 4/27/2012 Table 4.8

Part 4, Page: 88

Line 1 146 Seeing the connection between my intended career and how it affects society

147 My capstone was more engaging than my regular coursework

148 I created new knowledge in my discipline

149 Faculty Scales [1]150 5 point scales

151 CommunSkills152 Writes in a clear, articulate manner

153 Writes in a well-organized manner

154 Writes without distracting errors in spelling grammar, punctuation, usage, etc.

155 Delivers an effective poster presentation

156 Delivers an effective oral presentation

157 EffProjectMgt158 Properly plans tasks to achieve project goals

159 Demonstrates effective time management in completing tasks

160 Demonstrates accurate awareness of own abilities and limitations

161 Identifies a manageable set of project goals

162 Persists when faced with conceptual and practical difficulties

163 Uses feedback to assess performance

164 Locates appropriate source material

165 Demonstrates appropriate confidence in own intellectual ability

166 IntelEngagement167 Demonstrates intellectual curiosity

168 Shows originality

169 Shows evidence of independent thinking

170Synthesizes information to produce insights that expand the student's understanding

171 Actively pursues learning opportunities

172 Asks probing questions


174 CrThinkSkills175 Develops convincing arguments to support conclusions

176 Logically interprets and evaluates main points of source material

177 Supports arguments with appropriate evidence

178 Uses disciplinary knowledge and methods appropriately

179 Addresses opposing arguments or alternative explanations

180 Faculty Scales ‐ Post Only181 StudentTopicMotiv

182 When the project ended, how enthusiastic was the student about the topic?

183 When the project started, how enthusiastic was the student about the topic?

184To what extent did the student participate in developing / refining his /her capstone topic?

185 MentorInstruction186 I gave useful feedback to this student

187 I gave this student useful feedback

188 I gave timely feedback to this student

189 I gave this student useful advice

190 I effectively guided the student through the capstone

191 I gave this student sufficient access

192 I provided helpful subject matter expertise for this student's project

193 I met with this student regularly

194 MentorRapport195 I felt comfortable working with this student


3.49 428 3.47 221 3.55 516 3.36 334 3.57 831

4.29 428 4.36 221 4.27 520 4.28 337 4.30 832

3.91 427 3.93 221 3.91 520 3.82 336 3.95 832

3.81 3.95 .21 ** .24 277 3.13 3.44 .24 * .24 140 4.28 4.55 .22 *** .34 320 3.70 3.99 .29 *** .35 202 3.95 4.16 .19 *** .24 535

3.71 3.91 .16 * .15 266 3.14 3.24 .20 .18 139 4.25 4.46 .19 *** .23 315 3.61 3.81 .19 * .19 195 3.85 4.01 .18 *** .19 525

3.72 3.97 .24 ** .24 265 3.21 3.34 .11 .09 139 4.28 4.48 .17 ** .22 314 3.65 3.89 .26 ** .29 193 3.87 4.04 .16 ** .17 525

3.76 3.87 .11 .10 267 3.28 3.25 .04 .03 139 4.27 4.45 .20 *** .25 316 3.67 3.81 .22 * .21 196 3.91 3.98 .11 * .11 526

3.74 4.17 .54 ** .58 66 3.20 3.77 1.09 ** 1.04 26 4.17 4.49 .32 ** .49 77 3.68 4.19 .74 *** .81 47 3.87 4.24 .43 *** .51 122

3.79 4.09 .30 *** .32 244 3.24 3.61 .45 ** .39 114 4.10 4.50 .37 *** .49 263 3.67 4.05 .41 *** .43 174 3.83 4.17 .33 *** .37 447

3.86 4.03 .22 *** .27 281 3.31 3.60 .26 ** .33 143 4.25 4.50 .28 *** .45 328 3.75 4.02 .30 *** .40 209 3.99 4.20 .24 *** .33 543

3.80 3.99 .18 * .17 277 3.16 3.29 .17 .14 141 4.24 4.45 .28 *** .32 325 3.57 3.80 .29 ** .28 206 3.93 4.08 .19 *** .19 537

3.74 3.91 .17 .14 277 3.06 3.10 .13 .09 141 4.25 4.38 .17 * .18 322 3.49 3.61 .16 .12 206 3.91 4.03 .16 ** .15 534

3.64 3.94 .28 *** .25 262 3.23 3.45 .29 * .26 135 4.09 4.40 .36 *** .42 319 3.57 3.89 .48 *** .49 202 3.77 4.02 .26 *** .26 514

3.81 4.05 .19 ** .20 278 3.32 3.52 .20 .17 140 4.18 4.42 .29 *** .39 323 3.70 3.91 .20 * .19 207 3.89 4.12 .25 *** .28 534

3.88 4.23 .39 *** .37 269 3.35 3.74 .38 ** .31 139 4.35 4.58 .27 *** .33 318 3.78 4.11 .34 *** .34 203 3.99 4.30 .33 *** .34 523

3.91 4.11 .13 .12 265 3.44 3.68 .44 *** .37 137 4.29 4.55 .26 *** .32 315 3.79 4.02 .34 *** .30 198 4.00 4.24 .21 *** .23 519

3.87 4.07 .20 ** .22 271 3.43 3.62 .34 ** .35 134 4.27 4.48 .26 *** .36 311 3.76 3.99 .37 *** .45 195 3.99 4.17 .21 *** .25 521

3.63 3.90 .29 *** .29 269 3.20 3.39 .20 .18 136 4.02 4.36 .36 *** .39 323 3.63 3.88 .30 *** .32 205 3.68 3.97 .30 *** .30 523

3.79 3.95 .27 *** .34 280 3.29 3.54 .24 ** .27 143 4.26 4.50 .24 *** .38 327 3.87 4.08 .27 *** .35 209 3.91 4.12 .25 *** .33 541

3.90 4.10 .22 ** .22 277 3.42 3.67 .21 .19 142 4.37 4.56 .21 *** .28 326 3.93 4.09 .18 * .20 207 3.96 4.19 .23 *** .24 538

3.59 3.92 .38 *** .38 272 3.16 3.37 .25 * .22 138 4.09 4.41 .34 *** .36 323 3.65 3.88 .33 *** .32 204 3.66 3.99 .34 *** .35 529

3.80 4.12 .36 *** .37 278 3.35 3.60 .28 * .25 141 4.31 4.55 .26 *** .33 324 3.87 4.08 .28 ** .28 206 3.86 4.16 .31 *** .34 537

3.63 3.99 .43 *** .43 263 3.13 3.46 .53 *** .43 133 4.17 4.50 .38 *** .44 315 3.61 3.96 .48 *** .45 200 3.75 4.07 .40 *** .42 511

3.89 4.03 .20 ** .19 275 3.23 3.35 .03 .03 141 4.38 4.48 .16 ** .22 318 3.77 3.87 .10 .10 206 3.97 4.10 .17 *** .18 528

3.62 3.83 .27 ** .23 279 3.06 3.29 .24 .20 142 4.17 4.37 .26 *** .31 323 3.65 3.85 .35 *** .37 208 3.68 3.90 .23 *** .21 536

3.64 3.89 .27 *** .26 260 3.15 3.39 .24 .21 132 4.10 4.35 .19 ** .20 301 3.59 3.85 .26 ** .25 197 3.74 3.98 .21 *** .22 496

3.71 3.92 .31 *** .40 275 3.22 3.52 .30 ** .34 140 4.18 4.48 .32 *** .50 323 3.71 4.02 .36 *** .46 206 3.86 4.11 .30 *** .40 5323.64 3.91 .32 *** .36 269 3.18 3.38 .22 .20 137 4.13 4.42 .32 *** .40 311 3.59 3.85 .33 *** .33 204 3.76 4.01 .29 *** .34 513

3.75 4.06 .36 *** .42 266 3.23 3.48 .48 *** .46 134 4.22 4.46 .26 *** .36 314 3.69 3.96 .45 *** .56 195 3.85 4.10 .30 *** .35 519

3.79 4.06 .29 *** .34 270 3.40 3.53 .23 * .24 138 4.27 4.51 .29 *** .39 314 3.80 3.98 .27 *** .33 204 3.90 4.14 .28 *** .34 518

3.77 4.07 .33 *** .35 263 3.25 3.52 .35 ** .30 137 4.21 4.52 .36 *** .48 315 3.70 3.98 .38 *** .39 200 3.85 4.15 .33 *** .37 515

3.43 3.71 .33 *** .33 261 2.95 3.12 .27 * .25 134 3.94 4.27 .36 *** .41 309 3.44 3.69 .43 *** .45 198 3.53 3.79 .30 *** .31 506

4.17 277 4.00 137 4.40 314 4.20 198 4.25 530

4.24 275 4.13 137 4.49 311 4.30 196 4.34 527

4.26 275 4.07 137 4.43 314 4.28 197 4.31 529

4.00 277 3.80 136 4.27 314 4.02 198 4.10 529

4.44 158 4.43 74 4.57 184 4.44 109 4.52 307

4.47 158 4.54 74 4.61 184 4.46 109 4.57 307

4.38 99 4.50 44 4.56 130 4.45 77 4.50 196

4.51 157 4.51 74 4.59 184 4.52 109 4.55 306

4.51 158 4.57 74 4.63 184 4.50 109 4.60 307

4.23 158 4.27 74 4.47 184 4.25 109 4.38 307

4.66 158 4.65 74 4.72 184 4.64 109 4.70 307

4.25 158 4.28 74 4.37 183 4.23 108 4.33 307

4.46 158 4.14 74 4.56 183 4.39 109 4.47 306

4.46 158 4.36 74 4.69 184 4.47 109 4.57 307

4.59 157 4.36 74 4.78 184 4.56 109 4.66 306

14 4/27/2012 Table 4.8

Part 4, Page: 89

Line 1 196 Overall, I felt comfortable supervising this capstone

197 I was interested in this student's project

198 I communicated well with this student

199 I had reasonable expectations for the student’s capstone performance

200 I encouraged this student to work independently

201 Independent Summative202 Independence: Showing autonomy and initiative in thought and actions

203 Intellectual Engagement: Demonstrating an interest in learning

204 Self‐understanding: Developing an awareness of self (skills, abilities, interests)

205 Project Management: Conceiving and managing a project


207 Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Evaluating and constructing arguments with evidence

208 Communication: Presenting ideas effectively (written, oral, and other forms)

209 Post Graduate Plans (Advanced degrees planned during lifetime)210 GradProfSchl211 AdvDeg212 bachelors

213 masters

214 law (JD)

215 doctorate

[1] Some respondents may not have completed some individual questions, resulting

[2] Means for subgroups on this item have been omitted due to a small number of us[3] For simplicity only the Ns shown for the pre-faculty data are shown. For "All" dat


4.45 154 4.36 73 4.77 183 4.47 108 4.62 302

4.30 156 4.28 74 4.52 184 4.35 109 4.41 305

4.42 158 4.32 73 4.70 184 4.45 108 4.55 307

4.44 158 4.39 74 4.67 183 4.50 109 4.55 306

4.54 157 4.42 74 4.71 184 4.50 109 4.62 306

3.98 275 3.66 136 4.40 311 4.07 198 4.11 524

4.07 275 3.70 137 4.47 310 4.11 197 4.19 525

3.94 272 3.64 135 4.40 311 3.98 196 4.12 522

4.04 273 3.63 137 4.45 312 3.96 197 4.20 525

3.99 274 3.62 136 4.47 311 3.97 197 4.18 524

3.89 273 3.50 137 4.41 307 3.96 196 4.07 521

4.01 272 3.62 136 4.47 311 4.02 198 4.18 521

Pre Post Chg Pre Post Chg Pre Post Chg Pre Post Chg Pre Post Chg 63% 60% -3% 54% 49% -5% 65% 65% 0% 61% 55% -6% 63% 62% -1% 90% 88% -3% 83% 82% -1% 93% 92% -1% 86% 88% 1% 91% 89% -3%

12% 16% 4% 22% 20% -2% 8% 9% 0% 16% 18% 1% 11% 12% 2%51% 52% 1% 51% 52% 1% 45% 46% 1% 38% 40% 2% 54% 54% 0%6% 3% -2% 4% 6% 2% 6% 6% 0% 6% 7% 1% 5% 4% -1%32% 29% -3% 23% 22% -2% 41% 39% -1% 40% 36% -4% 31% 29% -1%

15 4/27/2012 Table 4.8

Part 4, Page: 90

Table 4.11: Pre/Post Significant Changes Data breakdowns for school(s): Combined 2009/10 and 2010/11 Data All

Line Arrows indicate direction of significant mean changes, p<=.05 Survey Means Arrow Summary1 All Red Tan White Yellow NatSci SocSci Hum. <=2.99 3‐3.49 >=3.5 Males Females2 Student Scales [1]15 4 point scales Arrows indicate the direction of change for statistically significant difference scores, p<=0.05, two‐tailed T‐test

16 CivicOrient ↑₁ 17 Volunteering in my community 18 Helping others who are in difficulty ↓₂ 19 Becoming a community leader ↑₂ ↑₁ 20 Influencing social values ↑₁ 21 Integrating spirituality into my life 22 Developing a meaningful philosophy of life 23 StatusCareerOrient ↓₁ ↓₁ ↓₂ 24 Becoming accomplished in my field of expertise ↓₂ ↓₂ ↓₂ ↓₁ ↓₂ ↓₁ ↓₂ ↓₁ ↓₂ ↓₂ ↓₁ ↓₂25 Working in a prestigious occupation 26 Making a lot of money 27 Obtaining recognition from my colleagues for contributions to my special field 28 HighOrderCogn ↓₁ ↓₂ ↓₂ ↓₁ ↓₁

29Synthesizing and organizing ideas, information, or experiences into new, more complex interpretations and relationships ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁


↑₂ ↓₂ ↑₁

31Analyzing the basic elements of an idea, experience, or theory, such as examining a particular case or situation in depth and considering its components ↓₁ ↓₂ ↓₁ ↓₁ ↓₁ ↓₁

32 Applying theories or concepts to practical problems or in new situations ↓₂ ↓₃ ↓₃ ↓₂ ↓₃ ↓₁ ↓₃ ↓₂ ↓₂ ↓₂ ↓₃33 MultPerspectives ↓₃ ↓₃ ↓₂ ↓₂ ↓₄ ↓₅ ↓₃ ↓₂ ↓₄ ↓₂ ↓₃ ↓₃ ↓₃

34Tried to better understand someone else’s views by imagining how an issue looks from his or her perspective ↓₃ ↓₂ ↓₂ ↓₄ ↓₆ ↓₂ ↓₃ ↓₂ ↓₂ ↓₃ ↓₂

35 Examined the strengths and weaknesses of your own views on a topic or issue ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₁ ↑₁

36 Included diverse perspectives (different races, religions, gender, political beliefs, etc.) ↓₄ ↓₅ ↓₂ ↓₃ ↓₅ ↓₇ ↓₄ ↓₂ ↓₄ ↓₃ ↓₄ ↓₄ ↓₄

37 Learned something that changed the way you understand an issue or concept ↓₁ ↓₂ ↓₁ ↓₂ 38 Put together ideas or concepts from different courses ↓₃ ↓₂ ↓₃ ↓₂ ↓₃ ↓₂ ↓₃ ↓₃ ↓₃ ↓₂ ↓₂ ↓₂ ↓₃39 5 point scales 40 SatisInstr ↓₁ 41 Quality of instruction in my major field ↓₁ ↓₁ 42 Overall quality of instruction 43 Overall college experience ↓₁

16 4/27/2012 Table 4.9

Part 4, Page: 91

1 All Red Tan White Yellow NatSci SocSci Hum. <=2.99 3‐3.49 >=3.5 Males Females

44 SatisSuppSrv ↓₁ ↓₂ ↓₁ ↓₁ ↓₂ ↓₂ ↓₁45 Computer facilities and services ↓₁ ↓₁46 Library facilities and services ↓₁ ↓₁ ↓₁ ↓₁ ↓₁ ↓₂ ↓₁47 Facilities/equipment in my major field ↓₁ ↓₁ ↓₁ ↓₂ ↓₁48 ExhibScholarlySkills ↑₄ ↑₅ ↑₂ ↑₄ ↑₅ ↑₅ ↑₅ ↑₄ ↑₄ ↑₅ ↑₄ ↑₂ ↑₅49 I located appropriate source material ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₄ ↑₄ ↑₄ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₅ ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₃50 I used disciplinary knowledge and methods appropriately ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₄ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₃51 I supported my arguments with appropriate evidence ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₁ ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₄ ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₃52 I showed originality ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₁ ↑₂ ↑₂53 I synthesized information to produce insights that expanded my understanding ↑₄ ↑₄ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₄ ↑₅ ↑₄ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₅ ↑₄ ↑₂ ↑₄54 I demonstrated good communication skills ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂55 I showed evidence of independent thinking ↑₃ ↑₄ ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₁ ↑₄56 I showed skill with quantitative reasoning ↑₁ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₄ ↑₂ ↓₁ ↑₂ ↑₁ ↑₂57 I persisted when faced with conceptual and practical difficulties ↑₃ ↑₄ ↑₃ ↑₄ ↑₄ ↑₄ ↑₃ ↑₄ ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₄58 I used feedback to assess my performance ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₁ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₁ ↑₂59 Integrated ideas or information from various sources ↑₂ ↑₁ ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₁ ↑₃ ↑₁ ↑₂ ↑₁60 NeedCognLite ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁61 The notion of thinking abstractly is appealing to me ↑₁ ↑₂ ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₂ ↑₁ ↑₂ ↑₁62 I enjoy expressing my ideas in writing ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁63 I really enjoy a task that involves coming up with new solutions to problems ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁64 Creating original works ↓₁ 65 I have confidence in my opinions, even if they are contrary to the general consensus ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₂ ↑₁66 ProjMgt ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₂67 I properly planned tasks to achieve project goals ↑₁ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₂ ↑₁68 I demonstrated effective time management in completing tasks ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂69 I identified manageable sets of goals for my projects ↑₁ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁70 RatingAcadAbil ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₃71 Writing ability ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₁ ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₁ ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₂72 Creativity ↑₁ ↑₂ ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₂ ↑₁ ↑₁73 Academic ability ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₁ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂74 Ability to think critically ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₁ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂75 Self-confidence (intellectual) ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₂ ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₂ ↑₁ ↑₁76 RatingLeadCollabSkills ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₁ ↑₂ ↑₁ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₂77 Public speaking ability ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₂78 Leadership ability ↑₁ ↑₁79 Self-confidence (social) ↑₁ ↑₂ ↑₁ 80 RatingIndepVoice ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁81 Self-understanding ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁82 Understanding of others 83 Ability to think and act on my own ↑₁ ↑₁

17 4/27/2012 Table 4.9

Part 4, Page: 92

1 All Red Tan White Yellow NatSci SocSci Hum. <=2.99 3‐3.49 >=3.5 Males Females

84 RatingStriver ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁85 Drive to achieve ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁86 Persistence ↑₁ ↑₁ 87 ResearchOrient ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₄ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₃88 I enjoy doing research ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₁ ↑₂ ↑₁ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂89 Research skills ↑₃ ↑₄ ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₄ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₃149 Faculty Scales [1] 151 CommunSkills ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₄ ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₂152 Writes in a clear, articulate manner ↑₂ ↑₄ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂153 Writes in a well-organized manner ↑₂ ↑₄ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₂154 Writes without distracting errors in spelling grammar, punctuation, usage, etc. ↑₁ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₁155 Delivers an effective poster presentation ↑₆ ↑₇ ↑₅ ↑₆ ↑₇ ↑₆ ↑₇ ↑₅ ↑₇ ↑₅156 Delivers an effective oral presentation ↑₄ ↑₅ ↑₅ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₅ ↑₄ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₄ ↑₅ ↑₄ ↑₄157 EffProjectMgt ↑₃ ↑₄ ↑₅ ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₄ ↑₄ ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₅ ↑₄ ↑₃158 Properly plans tasks to achieve project goals ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₄ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₂159 Demonstrates effective time management in completing tasks ↑₁ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₁160 Demonstrates accurate awareness of own abilities and limitations ↑₃ ↑₄ ↑₅ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₅ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₄ ↑₅ ↑₃161 Identifies a manageable set of project goals ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₄ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₄ ↑₂ ↑₃162 Persists when faced with conceptual and practical difficulties ↑₃ ↑₄ ↑₄ ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₄ ↑₅ ↑₂ ↑₄ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₃163 Uses feedback to assess performance ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₅ ↑₄ ↑₃ ↑₄ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₂164 Locates appropriate source material ↑₃ ↑₄ ↑₆ ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₄ ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₄ ↑₄ ↑₂165 Demonstrates appropriate confidence in own intellectual ability ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₅ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₄ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₄ ↑₃ ↑₃166 IntelEngagement ↑₃ ↑₄ ↑₆ ↑₃ ↑₄ ↑₂ ↑₄ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₄ ↑₄ ↑₃167 Demonstrates intellectual curiosity ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₅ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₂168 Shows originality ↑₃ ↑₄ ↑₅ ↑₄ ↑₄ ↑₂ ↑₄ ↑₄ ↑₂ ↑₄ ↑₃ ↑₃169 Shows evidence of independent thinking ↑₃ ↑₅ ↑₅ ↑₃ ↑₄ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₄ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₃170 Synthesizes information to produce insights that expand the student's understanding ↑₄ ↑₅ ↑₆ ↑₃ ↑₅ ↑₅ ↑₄ ↑₄ ↑₄ ↑₄ ↑₄ ↑₅ ↑₄171 Actively pursues learning opportunities ↑₂ ↑₅ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂172 Asks probing questions ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₆ ↑₄ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₄ ↑₂

173 Makes connections to other contexts (across courses, disciplines, experiences, etc.) ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₅ ↑₄ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₂

174 CrThinkSkills ↑₄ ↑₄ ↑₆ ↑₃ ↑₄ ↑₅ ↑₄ ↑₄ ↑₄ ↑₃ ↑₅ ↑₅ ↑₄175 Develops convincing arguments to support conclusions ↑₃ ↑₄ ↑₆ ↑₃ ↑₅ ↑₃ ↑₄ ↑₄ ↑₃ ↑₃176 Logically interprets and evaluates main points of source material ↑₄ ↑₄ ↑₅ ↑₃ ↑₅ ↑₃ ↑₄ ↑₅ ↑₄ ↑₅ ↑₄ ↑₆ ↑₃177 Supports arguments with appropriate evidence ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₇ ↑₄ ↑₂ ↑₄ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₄ ↑₃ ↑₃178 Uses disciplinary knowledge and methods appropriately ↑₄ ↑₃ ↑₅ ↑₃ ↑₄ ↑₃ ↑₄ ↑₄ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₅ ↑₄ ↑₄179 Addresses opposing arguments or alternative explanations ↑₃ ↑₅ ↑₄ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₆ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₄ ↑₅ ↑₃

Arrows are indicated only if a change was statistically significant, p<=.05, two‐tailed t‐test.

The number after the arrow indicates the magnitude of the effect size, measured as the average pre/post difference divided by the standard deviation of the pre/post differences, with

the the value rounded to the nearest decimal tenth.

18 4/27/2012 Table 4.9

Part 4, Page: 93

Table 4.12: Pre/Post Capstone Changes for Scales Data breakdowns for school(s):

Combined 2009/10 and 2010/11 Data All

Survey Means Arrow Summary

All Red Tan White Yellow NatSci SocSci Hum. <=2.99 3‐3.49 >=3.5 Males Females

Student Scales [1] Arrows indicate the direction of change for statistically significant difference scores, p<=0.05, two‐tailed T‐test

CivicOrient ↑₁ StatusCareerOrient ↓₁ ↓₁ ↓₂ HighOrderCogn ↓₁ ↓₂ ↓₂ ↓₁ ↓₁MultPerspectives ↓₃ ↓₃ ↓₂ ↓₂ ↓₄ ↓₅ ↓₃ ↓₂ ↓₄ ↓₂ ↓₃ ↓₃ ↓₃SatisInstr ↓₁ SatisSuppSrv ↓₁ ↓₂ ↓₁ ↓₁ ↓₂ ↓₂ ↓₁ExhibScholarlySkills ↑₄ ↑₅ ↑₂ ↑₄ ↑₅ ↑₅ ↑₅ ↑₄ ↑₄ ↑₅ ↑₄ ↑₂ ↑₅NeedCognLite ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁ProjMgt ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₂RatingAcadAbil ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₃RatingLeadCollabSkills ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₁ ↑₂ ↑₁ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₂RatingIndepVoice ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁RatingStriver ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁ ↑₁ResearchOrient ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₄ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₃Faculty Scales [1] CommunSkills ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₄ ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₂EffProjectMgt ↑₃ ↑₄ ↑₅ ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₄ ↑₄ ↑₂ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₅ ↑₄ ↑₃IntelEngagement ↑₃ ↑₄ ↑₆ ↑₃ ↑₄ ↑₂ ↑₄ ↑₃ ↑₃ ↑₄ ↑₄ ↑₃CrThinkSkills ↑₄ ↑₄ ↑₆ ↑₃ ↑₄ ↑₅ ↑₄ ↑₄ ↑₄ ↑₃ ↑₅ ↑₅ ↑₄Arrows are indicated only if a change was statistically significant, p<=.05, two‐tailed t‐test.

The number after the arrow indicates the magnitude of the effect size, measured as the average pre/post difference divided by the standard deviation of the pre/post differences, with

the value rounded to the nearest decimal tenth.

19 4/27/2012 Table 4.10

Part 4, Page: 94

Table 4.13 Summary Sheet: Means of Scales and Summative Items Asked Only on the Post-Capstone Student and Faculty SurveysCombined 2009/10 and 2010/11 Data Based on the pool of capstones for which there was both a pre and post capstone surveySummary of scales and selected items that were only asked on the pre-capstone or post-capstone, but not both, and the Advanced Degree items

Line Combined 2009/10 and 2010/11 Data All Red Tan White Yellow All‐ NatSci All‐ SocSci All‐ Humanities All‐ 2.99 and under All‐ 3‐3.49 All‐ 3.5 and up All‐ Males All‐Females

1 Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post2 Student Scales [1]3 5 point scale

4 ExpectGoodCapstone 4.20 4.33 4.14 4.10 4.16 4.26 4.22 4.17 4.23 4.22 4.18 4.17 4.21 90 Student Experience Scales (Post Only)91 4 point scales

92 PrepBreadth 2.33 2.34 2.45 2.32 2.20 2.15 2.35 2.39 2.32 2.34 2.32 2.25 2.3698 PrepDisc 2.91 2.91 2.87 2.78 2.99 3.00 2.93 2.83 2.96 2.90 2.89 2.85 2.93103 PrepQuant 2.42 2.44 2.28 2.34 2.55 2.82 2.51 1.71 2.46 2.49 2.34 2.43 2.41106 5 point scales

107 MentorRel 4.41 4.46 4.33 4.41 4.40 4.53 4.32 4.41 4.34 4.38 4.46 4.38 4.42122 CapContDev 4.11 4.12 4.08 4.08 4.16 4.21 4.12 4.04 4.08 4.15 4.10 4.05 4.14134 CapMoreEngaging 4.17 4.24 4.00 3.95 4.31 4.19 4.22 4.19 4.25 4.16 4.13 4.15 4.17138 CapSuccessful 4.03 4.07 4.07 3.93 4.00 4.10 3.99 3.99 4.02 4.01 4.05 3.97 4.05180 Faculty Scales ‐ Post Only181 StudentTopicMotiv 4.24 4.39 4.17 4.09 4.24 4.20 4.24 4.35 4.00 4.17 4.40 4.20 4.25185 MentorInstruction 4.49 4.57 4.39 4.39 4.56 4.49 4.48 4.57 4.43 4.44 4.57 4.44 4.52194 MentorRapport 4.54 4.61 4.46 4.45 4.59 4.58 4.48 4.60 4.36 4.46 4.69 4.47 4.57201 Independent Summative

202Independence: Showing autonomy and initiative in thought and actions

4.10 4.14 4.09 4.07 4.08 4.12 4.06 4.11 3.66 3.98 4.40 4.07 4.11

203 Intellectual Engagement: Demonstrating an interest in learning 4.17 4.23 4.16 4.07 4.19 4.19 4.13 4.24 3.70 4.07 4.47 4.11 4.19

204Self‐understanding: Developing an awareness of self (skills, abilities, interests)

4.08 4.15 4.17 4.04 3.98 4.16 3.96 4.14 3.64 3.94 4.40 3.98 4.12

205 Project Management: Conceiving and managing a project 4.14 4.20 4.13 4.04 4.15 4.21 4.10 4.08 3.63 4.04 4.45 3.96 4.20

206 Research: Investigating in a manner appropriate to the discipline 4.12 4.16 4.18 4.08 4.09 4.27 4.05 4.05 3.62 3.99 4.47 3.97 4.18


4.04 4.09 4.06 3.99 4.01 4.10 3.96 4.04 3.50 3.89 4.41 3.96 4.07

208Communication: Presenting ideas effectively (written, oral, and other forms)

4.13 4.18 4.21 4.10 4.07 4.21 4.04 4.17 3.62 4.01 4.47 4.02 4.18

209 Post Graduate Plans (Advanced degrees planned dur Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post211 AdvDeg 90% 88% 91% 87% 91% 89% 85% 83% 90% 92% 92% 90% 92% 90% 86% 86% 83% 82% 90% 88% 93% 92% 86% 88% 91% 89%212 bachelors 13% 14% 10% 14% 12% 15% 16% 17% 11% 11% 9% 8% 9% 10% 18% 22% 22% 20% 12% 16% 8% 9% 16% 18% 11% 12%

213 masters 49% 50% 42% 43% 56% 59% 50% 49% 46% 49% 42% 44% 46% 50% 53% 53% 51% 52% 51% 52% 45% 46% 38% 40% 54% 54%

214 law (JD) 5% 5% 5% 5% 4% 2% 7% 6% 4% 5% 0% 0% 9% 8% 6% 6% 4% 6% 6% 3% 6% 6% 6% 7% 5% 4%

215 doctorate 34% 32% 42% 38% 28% 24% 28% 28% 39% 35% 50% 47% 35% 32% 23% 19% 23% 22% 32% 29% 41% 39% 40% 36% 31% 29%

20 4/27/2012 Table 4.13

Part 4, Page: 95

blank page

Part 4, Page: 96

PART 4 APPENDICES

4.1 Notes on Sample Bias Effects 4.2 Effects of Socio‐Economic Status 4.3 Notes on the Factorization of the Data 4.4 Mentor Evaluations vs. Student 4.5 Capstone Preparation: Importance as Capstone Preparation 4.6 Workload: Means of Student and Faculty Workload and Topic Selection/Enthusiasm Questions 4.7 What correlates with expecting to have a good capstone? 4.8 Success: Conditions Associated with a Successful Capstone (General Linear Modeling of and

correlates of “PostCapSuccessful”) 4.9 Double Majoring: Scale Mean Differences between Single Majors and Double Majors 4.10 Independence: Correlations of Items Relating to Student Independence 4.11 Grades and Capstone Ratings: Correspondence of Capstone Grades with Students’ Rating of the

Capstone

Part 4, Page: 97

Appendix 4.1: Notes on Sample Bias Effects – Capstone Data, 2009/10.

These notes address the question of differences between the groups of students who responded to both the pre and post surveys and those who didn’t. They also look at whether the faculty results were different depending on whether the same faculty member did both the pre and post faculty surveys, or not.

Student Surveys

As shown in the table below, there were 621 capstone records in the database where the student completed both the pre and post surveys. There were 290 records where the student completed the pre survey, but not the post survey, and 198 records where the student completed the post survey, but not the pre survey. There are another 201 records where the student completed neither survey, but a faculty member completed a pre or post survey about the student.

surveystatusgrp survey status groups


Cumulative

Percent

Valid 1 Both pre/post student 621 47.4 47.4 47.4

2 pre, no post 290 22.1 22.1 69.5

3 no pre, post 198 15.1 15.1 84.7

4 no pre and no post 201 15.3 15.3 100.0

Total 1310 100.0 100.0

Simplifying the above, we have 621 “completers”, the “Yes” group in the tables below, and 689

“others”, the “No” group below:

surveycompleters Completed both surveys ( Y=1, 0=N)


Cumulative

Percent

Valid 0 No 689 52.6 52.6 52.6

1 Yes 621 47.4 47.4 100.0

Total 1310 100.0 100.0

Part 4, Page: 98

So do the 621 student “completers” who did both the pre and post differ from the “others” in any significant ways? Yes, as shown in the following table. Based on a p<=.05 level, item are statisitically significant if “ANOVA sig.” is <= . 050.

N Mean Std.

Deviation Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

ANOVA sig.

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

CapGrade Capstone grade (if more than one, average grade)

0 No 581 3.15 .84 .03 3.08 3.22 .000

1 Yes 524 3.39 .73 .03 3.33 3.45

Total 1105 3.26 .80 .02 3.22 3.31

PreCapColGPA College GPA ‐ Start of capstone year

0 No 686 3.15 .46 .02 3.12 3.18 .000

1 Yes 620 3.34 .42 .02 3.31 3.37

Total 1306 3.24 .45 .01 3.22 3.26

NonWhiteAm Non White Am (Y=1, N=0)

0 No 661 .11 .31 .01 .09 .13 .503

1 Yes 597 .10 .30 .01 .07 .12

Total 1258 .10 .31 .01 .09 .12

genderN gender(M=1, F=0)

0 No 689 .49 .50 .02 .45 .53 .000

1 Yes 621 .30 .46 .02 .26 .34

Total 1310 .40 .49 .01 .37 .43

ACTSAT ACT score (or converted SAT)

0 No 661 25.54 3.43 .13 25.27 25.80 .001

1 Yes 600 26.20 3.56 .15 25.92 26.49

Total 1261 25.85 3.51 .10 25.66 26.05

HSPCT HS Rank percentile

0 No 448 79.30 16.21 .77 77.79 80.80 .000

1 Yes 446 83.38 15.65 .74 81.93 84.84

Total 894 81.34 16.05 .54 80.28 82.39

GradColGPA College GPA – final at graduation

0 No 645 3.21 .43 .02 3.18 3.24 .000

1 Yes 616 3.37 .39 .02 3.34 3.40

Total 1261 3.29 .42 .01 3.27 3.31

EFC (from FAFSA) 0 No 471 15173 16544 762 13675 16671 .028

1 Yes 433 17681 17710 851 16008 19354

Total 904 16374 17149 570 15255 17493

Need Financial aid – unmet need CDS method

0 No 476 5076 6034 277 4532 5619 .626

1 Yes 436 4879 6158 295 4299 5458

Total 912 4982 6091 202 4586 5378

Athlete Varsity athletic participation in year of capstone ‐ number of teams

0 No 689 .24 .54 .02 .20 .28 .005

1 Yes 621 .16 .43 .02 .13 .20

Total 1310 .20 .49 .01 .18 .23

MotherEd Mother's highest education level (FAFSA)

0 No 460 2.62 .51 .02 2.57 2.66 .021

1 Yes 435 2.69 .48 .02 2.65 2.74

Total 895 2.65 .50 .02 2.62 2.69

FatherEd Father's 0 No 454 2.59 .53 .03 2.55 2.64 .243

Part 4, Page: 99

highest education level (FAFSA)

1 Yes 437 2.64 .52 .03 2.59 2.69

Total 891 2.62 .53 .02 2.58 2.65

Citing the statistically significant differences, p<=.05, two tailed, the completers, on average, received a higher grade on the capstone, had a higher college GPA both before and after the capstone, had a somewhat higher expected family contribution (EFC) for college (indicating higher average family incomes), had a higher average ACT (including converted SATs), a higher average high school percentile, had a higher percentage of females ( 70% vs. 51%), a higher average educational level for mothers, and, perhaps related to the female percentage, participated in fewer intercollegiate athletic teams during their senior year. On the other hand, statistically significant differences did not emerge for the percentage of White Americans vs. other racial/ethnic groups, financial aid unmet need, or father’s educational level.

The higher percentage of females among the completers is associated with a portion of the differences in some of the other variables, since females in the study have statistically significant higher averages for the academic indicators (capstone grade, college GPAs, ACT score, and high school percentile), and lower athletic participation. Statistically significant differences remained, however, even after controlling for gender in all these variables between completers and others, except for ACT score. For the remaining academic variables, the completers continued to score higher, on average. In contrast, for athletic participation, after controlling for gender, the earlier indication reversed – the completers on average had a slightly higher athletic participation.

Since EFC and parental education levels emerged as a difference, it might be noted that GLM models for the “PostCapSuccessful” and “PostCapContDev” scales showed no effect from the average of the mother’s and father’s education level or EFC when incorporated in a model with gender and college GPA. Hence, as a preliminary conclusion, adjusting overall results for differences in these variables does not appear to be necessary once gender and college GPA are considered.

In summary, we have observed sample differences that, while not at all invalidating our study, will need to be acknowledged in the report. (Other studies have shared these same problems ‐ It is not at all uncommon for females to complete surveys in higher percentages than males, and better students tend to also be more willing to complete many surveys.) This sample bias for participating students should be considered before generalizing the overall composite results to all seniors. The sample differences are particularly important when considering the difference scores, since difference scores are only available for the completers. In analysis of the difference scores we should continue to consider differences by gender and college GPA as help in analyzing the effect the sample bias may have when generalizing to all seniors. If it would appear to make a significant difference we could consider weighting the results to be more representative for all seniors, but this may be unwarranted unless it would appear to change the overall story.

Faculty Surveys

Part 4, Page: 100

Recognizing that the mentor for the capstone may not know the student well enough to complete the pre survey, we allowed any faculty member well acquainted with the student’s prior academic performance to complete the pre‐capstone survey, even though the ideal would be for the same faculty member, the mentor, to complete both the pre and post surveys.

A data field indicating whether the mentor who completed the post survey also completed the pre survey was available from Tan and Yellow, resulting in 727 capstone records for which the data is known. Among these 234 (17%) had the same faculty member completing both surveys.

PreEqPost Pre faculty report and mentor report by same faculty member?


Cumulative

Percent

Valid N 493 35.8 67.8 67.8

Y 234 17.0 32.2 100.0

Total 727 52.8 100.0

Missing 9999 650 47.2

Total 1377 100.0

The question is whether the “Y” group above, differs from the “N” group. The table below looks at the average pre to post difference score for the capstone record for each group.

PreEqPost Pre faculty report and mentor report by same faculty member? DCommunSkills DEffProjectMgt DIntelEngagement DCrThinkSkills

N Mean .18 .09 .07 .12

N 159 163 165 161

Std. Deviation 1.015 1.056 .987 .983

Y Mean .24 .31 .21 .27

N 227 228 230 222

Std. Deviation .82474 .76657 .79572 .76537

Total Mean .21 .22 .16 .21

N 386 391 395 383

Std. Deviation .907 .904 .882 .866

ANOVA sig. .545 .021 .120 .095

In general, it appears that the observed average differences, which are for student improvements in performance, are higher when the mentor also did the pre‐survey, but the differences were not statistically significant, p=.05, two tailed, except for “effective project management”. It looks, however,

Part 4, Page: 101

like a larger N from more data from the second year, might lead to a conclusion that the differences for “intellectual engagement” and “critical thinking skills” would also be statistically significant, so this remains a concern in terms of potential noise in the data. In any case, if there is a bias introduced by using data from mixed faculty, it appears that our difference data would tend to under report student improvement on these scales, so our results indicating statistically significant difference scores from the faculty surveys are not weakened by using results from mixed faculty reporters. Here the assumption is that the most accurate data would come from results when the reporter was the same faculty member.

Part 4, Page: 102

APPENDIX 4.2 – Effects of Socio‐Economic Status: Is socio‐economic‐status or financial need a factor in capstone success?

This analysis has been done using the year 1, 2009/10 data, and looks at the socio‐ecomonic‐status financial and educational level variables and how they relate to our successful capstone scales. The analysis was done using the general linear modeling (GLM) procedure of SPSS. To look at this question we have available in the database the following variables:

EFC EFC (from FAFSA) Need Financial aid – unmet need CDS method GrantAid Financial aid – total grant awards all sources (incl. waivers) fall of capstone year MotherEd Mother's highest education level (FAFSA) FatherEd Father's highest education level (FAFSA) CumLoans Financial Aid ‐ Cumulative loans at graduation using CDS H4 definition AvgParentEd Average of MotherEd and FatherEd Result for “PostCapSuccessful” (Capstone successful scale) A general linear modeling (GLM) analysis with dependent variable “PostCapSuccessful”, with cofactors AvgParentEd, EFC, Need, college GPA at graduation and gender as a factor showed none of these variables had statistically significant effects:

Tests of Model Effects

Source

Type III

Wald Chi‐Square df Sig.

(Intercept) 109.170 1 .000

Gender .000 1 .994

AvgParentEd .376 1 .540

EFC .001 1 .982

CumLoans 1.516 1 .218

Need 1.126 1 .289

GradColGPA 2.075 1 .150

Dependent Variable: PostCapSuccessful

Model: (Intercept), Gender, AvgParentEd, EFC, CumLoans, Need,

GradColGPA

Results for “PostCapContDev” (Capstone contribution to development scale)

Part 4, Page: 103

A similar GLM analysis with dependent variable “PostCapContDev”, with cofactors AvgParentEd, EFC, Need, college GPA at graduation and gender as a factor showed gender and CumLoans with significant effects.


Source

Type III


(Intercept) 166.345 1 .000

Gender 7.081 1 .008

AvgParentEd .841 1 .359

EFC 1.629 1 .202

CumLoans 5.080 1 .024

Need .008 1 .927

GradColGPA .362 1 .548

Dependent Variable: PostCapContDev

Model: (Intercept), Gender, AvgParentEd, EFC, CumLoans, Need,

GradColGPA

The GLM model for PostCapContDev using only Gender and CumLoans as independent

variables was computed as follows:

Parameter Estimates

Parameter B Std. Error

95% Wald Confidence Interval Hypothesis Test

Lower Upper Wald Chi‐Square df Sig.

(Intercept) 3.944 .0450 3.856 4.032 7678.976 1 .000

[Gender=F] .144 .0495 .047 .241 8.421 1 .004

[Gender=M] 0a . . . . . .

CumLoans 2.273E‐6 1.0152E‐6 2.837E‐7 4.263E‐6 5.015 1 .025

(Scale) .405b .0214 .365 .449


Model: (Intercept), Gender, CumLoans

a. Set to zero because this parameter is redundant.

b. Maximum likelihood estimate.

CumLoans has mean 22,219 and standard deviation 22,928 (see graph below), so the impact predicted by the model from a standard deviation change in CumLoans is 22,928 * 2.273E‐6 = .052. Since the coefficient is positive, the model predicts higher reports of a contribution to development for students with higher cumulate loan values. This is a weak association, however, since a move of .052 is relatively small in the distribution for PostCapContDev:

Part 4, Page: 104

These results are contrary to the expectations of the IR group, who included CumLoans and Need as variables out of concern that students under more financial pressure might need to work more at on or off campus jobs and have less time for the capstone.

Part 4, Page: 105

Conclusion

No evidence emerged that socio economic status, as construed from parent’s educational level and income level (using EFC as a surrogate), have an effect on our capstone results. Higher CumLoans may be positively associated with modestly higher reports of development during the capstone, but unless there is a theoretical argument for why this is reasonable, we should wait to see if further data corroborates this finding. _______ *** Recoding CumLoans into CumLoanGroups, using groups based on $20K intervals did not change the result that CumLoans is positively associated with higher capstone results on the PostCapContDev scale. Also, in case some zero values for CumLoans were incorrect or from missing data, the result was checked with 0 declared a missing value, and, again, there was the same weak positive association. The coefficient in the model for CumLoanGroups was 0.036, indicating an increase of about $20,000 in loans added about 0.036 to the rating of PostCapContDev.

cumloangroup cumulative loan group


Cumulative

Percent

Valid 0 0 373 27.1 29.6 29.6

1 1 ‐ 19.999 231 16.8 18.3 47.9

2 20,000‐39,999 436 31.7 34.6 82.5

3 40,000 ‐ 59,999 123 8.9 9.8 92.3

4 60,000‐79,999 62 4.5 4.9 97.2

5 80,00 and up 35 2.5 2.8 100.0

Total 1260 91.5 100.0

Missing System 117 8.5

Total 1377 100.0

Part 4, Page: 106

GENLIN Postcapcontdev BY Gender (ORDER=ASCENDING) WITH CumLoanGroup /MODEL Gender CumLoanGroup INTERCEPT=YES DISTRIBUTION=NORMAL LINK=IDENTITY /CRITERIA SCALE=MLE COVB=MODEL PCONVERGE=1E‐006(ABSOLUTE) SINGULAR=1E‐012 ANALYSISTYPE=3(WALD) CILEVEL=95 CITYPE=WALD LIKELIHOOD=FULL /MISSING CLASSMISSING=EXCLUDE /PRINT CPS DESCRIPTIVES MODELINFO FIT SUMMARY SOLUTION.


Source

Type III


(Intercept) 12273.500 1 .000

Gender 8.399 1 .004

cumloangroup 3.944 1 .047


Model: (Intercept), Gender, cumloangroup

Parameter Estimates

Part 4, Page: 107

Parameter B Std. Error

95% Wald Confidence Interval Hypothesis Test

Lower Upper Wald Chi‐Square df Sig.

(Intercept) 3.941 .0473 3.848 4.034 6943.470 1 .000

[Gender=F] .144 .0495 .046 .241 8.399 1 .004

[Gender=M] 0a . . . . . .

cumloangroup .036 .0181 .000 .071 3.944 1 .047

(Scale) .406b .0214 .366 .450


Model: (Intercept), Gender, cumloangroup

a. Set to zero because this parameter is redundant.

b. Maximum likelihood estimate.

Part 4, Page: 108

Appendix 4.3: Notes on the Factorization of the Combined 2009/10 and 2010/11 Data

Introduction

The purpose of factor analysis is data reduction – to reduce the number of variables to a smaller set of scales that can be used in further analysis. Separate factor analyses were done for each of the four pre‐ and post‐capstone surveys of students and faculty. The resulting scales are listed with a brief description on the “Summary of Capstone Survey Scales” sheet. Detailed and technical information on the scales, including the reliability alpha, component survey items, and the correlation or factor loading of each item with the overall scale is given. The individual items for each scale are listed in descending order of their correlation or factor loading, and thus are listed in descending order of the strength of their relationship with the overall scale. The scale values are computed as the average of the values of the component items.

A first factor analysis was done using the data from year 1, 2009/10, and a separate factor analysis was done with the data from year 2, 2010/11.

The interrelationships among the scales are shown in the tables of correlations include in Tables 4.4 to 4.9. Excel’s conditional formatting color scales have been used in those tables to highlight the relative magnitude of the values, with higher correlations appearing as the brighter green. The number at the intersection of a row and column indicates the correlation of the two corresponding scales, and the tables are symmetric across the diagonal.

Observations on the factorizations and scales:

Ideally, the reliability of each scale would be high, 0.7 or above, and the correlation or factor loading of each component item would also be high, 0.4, or above. Generally, these conditions are met, with a few borderline cases, however.

Most, but not all, of the factors came out with the same component items when each of the two years of data was done separately, and the changes that occurred seemed minor, indicating a great deal of stability. Where there were some changes, it was decided to retain the same scale components as were derived from the first year’s data for the overall analysis.

Because of additional questions on the post‐capstone surveys in year 2, the student scale for “MentorRel” incorporated a number of new items for year 2 only. These have an SPSS variable name of the form PostStuxxx with “xxx” a number in the 200’s. The high reliability of this item, 0.959, would indicate that we could have captured the same information without adding so many questions.

Similarly, new questions on the Post‐Capstone Faculty Survey resulted in two new scales: “MentorInstruction”, and “MentorFeedback”. Unlike with the student surveys, where the mentor relationship items did not break down into these separate items, the faculty data suggests mentors distinguish more clearly between their instructional and personal relationship with the student.

Part 4, Page: 109

In the four cases where they aligned, the summative ratings of student performance (lines 273‐279 of the “Capstone Survey Scales” sheet) were highly correlated with their respective scale, as seen on the “Faculty Summative Assessments to Faculty Scales Inter‐Correlations” sheet. For example, the summative rating for “Critical Thinking and Reasoning” had a correlation of 0.776 with the “PostCrThinkSkills” scale. This cross‐validation of the survey components reinforces the validity of the scales and summative items, and could also be a justification for using only the summative items on a short form of future surveys, as for assessment purposes.

It is interesting to note some differences between the pre‐ and post‐capstone factorizations that may indicate that changes occurred during the capstone in how students and/or faculty contextualized certain skills:

• On the student surveys, demonstrating good communications skills moved from aligning with the leadership/collaboration skills factor to the scholarly skills factor. Possibly this is because the capstone emphasizes scholarly writing and many capstones include a formal presentation.

• Similarly, integrating ideas from various sources moved from aligning with the multiple perspectives factor to the scholarly skills factor. Again, the capstone may emphasize this more as a scholarly skill than has prior work.

• On the faculty surveys, the critical thinking items were aligned with the communication skills factor for the pre‐survey, while on the post‐survey the critical thinking items were aligned more with the intellectual engagement factor. One might wonder if this represents a difference in how the capstone elicits critical thinking versus a regular course, or if the scale of the capstone might expose different aspects of the student’s critical thinking abilities.

Despite these shifts, in order to keep the pre and post scales identical, in terms of the included items, the items that emerged in the pre‐survey factorizations were kept for both pre and post analysis. The scale reliabilities remained satisfactory.

Part 4, Page: 110

Appendix 4.4: Mentor Evaluations vs. Student – Are mentor assessments of student performance consistent with other data?

• Do the four mentor evaluation scales align well with the seven summative evaluation items? • Are faculty mentor reports of student performance consistent with student self assessments? • Do mentor evaluations align with students assessments of their preparation for the capstone?

Each of the above questions is of interest for purposes of data of cross validating student and faculty assessments, and the design of reliable assessment instruments. The analysis below is based on the year 1, 2009/10 data.

Mentor Evaluation Fields

The analysis of the post capstone mentor surveys is aided by boiling the data down to four scales and seven summative items that summarize the mentor’s rating of the student’s performance. These are:

Four scales:

PostCommunSkills Student exhibited good communication skills.

PostEffProjectMgt Student exhibited good project management skills.

PostIntelEngagement Student exhibited good intellectual engagement behaviors.

PostCrThinkSkills Student exhibited good critical thinking skills.

Seven summative evaluation items:

PostFac27 Independence: Showing autonomy and initiative in thought and actions

PostFac28 Intellectual Engagement: Demonstrating an interest in learning

PostFac29 Self‐understanding: Developing an awareness of self (skills, abilities, interests)

PostFac30 Project Management: Conceiving and managing a project

PostFac31 Research: Investigating in a manner appropriate to the discipline

PostFac32 Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Evaluating and constructing arguments with evidence

PostFac33 Communication: Presenting ideas effectively (written, oral, and other forms)

Consistency of Mentor Evaluations

Are the faculty evaluation items consistent and/or highly correlated? Table 1 below shows the correlations among these 11 items. All the correlations are statistically significant at p<=0.05, two‐tailed. The four scales are all highly correlated with each other, with a correlation of .700 or higher. The summative items are also highly correlated with each other and with the four scales. The correlation of each of the four scales with the summative item most closely aligned with it is particularly high in each case. These are the correlations outlined with thick boxes in Table 1 below. For instance, the summative item about critical thinking has a correlation of .783 with the critical thinking scale. Given these correlations, the interpretation of the four scales is reinforced, and it might be argued that using just the four scales in further analysis will reveal most of the findings of interest.

Student Evaluation Fields

Part 4, Page: 111

The student scales or interest are:


PostPrepDisc Helpfulness as preparation for the capstone of areas that are grounded in the disciplinary major of the capstone.

PostPrepQuant Helpfulness as preparation for the capstone of quantitative or computer based techniques.

PostMentorRel Helpful and comfortable relationship with the mentor.


PostCapMoreEngaging Rating of the capstone as more or less intellectually engaging than a regular course.

PostCapSuccessful Overall assessment of the capstone as a successful experience.

PostSatisInstr Satisfaction with instruction.

PostSatisSuppSrv Satisfaction with academic support services (library, computer, facilities/equipment supporting their major).

PostCivicOrient Orientation toward civic engagement.


PostExhibScholarlySkills During the past academic year (pre) or during the capstone (post) the student exhibited scholarly skills.

PostNeedCognLite An abbreviated version of the Need for Cognition scale designed to measure interest in or enjoyment of higher order cognition.

PostMultPerspectives Using behaviors that exhibit an interest in examining ideas from a multiplicity of perspectives.

PostProjMgt Exhibiting good project management skills.

PostRatingAcadAbil Student's self rating of his/her academic ability.

PostRatingCollabSkills Student's self rating of his/her group collaboration skills.

PostRatingIndepVoice Student's self rating of his/her understanding of themselves and others and ability to think on their own.

PostResearchOrient Student's self rating of his/her drive to achieve and persistence.

PostRatingStriver Enjoyment of research.

PostStatusCareerOrient Desire to have a prestigious, high paying, and high achieving career.

Consistency of Student Reports and Mentor Evaluations

Table 2 shows the correlations of the mentor evaluations with the student scales from the post‐capstone student surveys. Correlations that are statistically significant p<=.05 are bolded and shaded.

As shown in Table 2, all the significant correlations are positive, indicating generally good correspondence between the faculty and student ratings for capstone performance. Other notes:

Part 4, Page: 112

• The two key indicators of students’ rating of the capstone, PostCapSuccessful, PostCapContDev correlated positively with all 11 of the mentor ratings.

• All 11 mentor ratings also correlated positively and significantly with PostMentorRel, PostSatisInstr, PostExhibScholarlySkills, PostProjMgt, PostResearchOrient, and PostRatingStriver. Thus, on the mentor’s side, high evaluations of the student’s performance are generally associated with, as reported by students, a good student/mentor relationship, higher student satisfaction with instruction, and students’ feeling that they were good project managers, persisted through difficulties, exhibited good academic skills, and enjoyed doing research.

Capstone preparation and faculty assessments of performance

Mentor evaluations had surprisingly weak correlations with students’ assessments of the helpfulness of various forms of preparation for the capstone.

• PrepDisc had a statistically significant correlation with only one of the four scales (.140 with effective project management) , while PostEffProjectMgt. PostPrepBreadth and PostPrepQuant did not have a statistically significant correlation with any of the four scales.

• Looking at the seven summative evaluations, disciplinary preparation has a statistically significant but small correlation with 5 of the 7 items, while the “breadth” preparation associated with general education programs has a statistically significant correlation with only self understanding (.105). Quantitative preparation did not have a statistically significant correlation with any of the seven items.

Overall it appears students’ sense of their preparation doesn’t relate strongly with the mentors’ evaluations of performance. This was particularly true for quantitative preparation. These results might be seen as consistent with the data for the MultiplePerspectives scale that suggests that the capstone experience is, on average, more an in depth experience in the major rather than an experience that integrates the four‐year college experience.

Conclusions

It seems reasonable to conclude, as an overall summary, that the mentor’s ratings are generally consistent with students’ own perceptions of their performance. Moreover, the correlation of mentors’ ratings with students’ feeling more positive about the mentor relationship underscores the importance of the student/mentor relationship as a possible contributor to better capstone performance. Mentor evaluations had only weak correlations with student assessments of the helpfulness of various capstone preparation forms. Further investigation of cases where the student and mentor reports are out of sync might be of interest.

Part 4, Page: 113

Sca les Summative Items

Table 1: Correlations of Faculty Evaluation Fields

PostCommunSk

ills Student exhibited good

communication skills.

PostEf fProject

Mgt Student exhibited good project

management skills.

PostIntelEngage

ment Student exhibited good intellect

ual engage

ment behavio

rs.

PostCrThinkSkill

s Student exhibited good critical

thinking skills.

PostFac27

Independence: Show in

g autonomy and initiative

in thought

and actions

PostFac28

Intellectual

Engagement:

Demonstrating

an interest

in learning

PostFac29 Self -

understanding:

Developing an

aw areness of

self (skills,

abilities, interests

)

PostFac30

Project Manage

ment: Conceiving and

managing a

project

PostFac31

Research:

Investigating in a manner

appropriate to the

discipline

PostFac32 Critical Thinking

and Reasonin

g: Evaluatin

g and construct

ing argument

s w ith evidence

PostFac33

Communication: Presenting ideas ef fectiv

ely (w ritten, oral, and

other forms)

PostCommunSkills Student exhibited good communication skills. 1 .737 .713 .781 .563 .528 .598 .631 .637 .650 .702

PostEf fProjectMgt Student exhibited good project management skills.

.737 1 .837 .857 .708 .708 .743 .794 .773 .757 .720

PostIntelEngagement Student exhibited good intellectual engagement behaviors.

.713 .837 1 .873 .757 .748 .717 .700 .755 .774 .687

PostCrThinkSkills Student exhibited good critical thinking skills. .781 .857 .873 1 .687 .659 .712 .705 .765 .783 .705

PostFac27 Independence: Show ing autonomy and initiative in thought

d i

.563 .708 .757 .687 1 .761 .719 .679 .720 .759 .700

PostFac28 Intellectual Engagement: Demonstrating an interest in learning .528 .708 .748 .659 .761 1 .727 .683 .745 .749 .705

PostFac29 Self -understanding: Developing an aw areness of self ( kill bili i i )

.598 .743 .717 .712 .719 .727 1 .716 .750 .752 .746

PostFac30 Project Management: Conceiving and managing a project .631 .794 .700 .705 .679 .683 .716 1 .791 .738 .730

PostFac31 Research: Investigating in a manner appropriate to the di i li

.637 .773 .755 .765 .720 .745 .750 .791 1 .820 .743

PostFac32 Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Evaluating and

i i h

.650 .757 .774 .783 .759 .749 .752 .738 .820 1 .795

PostFac33 Communication: Presenting ideas ef fectively ( i l d h f )

.702 .720 .687 .705 .700 .705 .746 .730 .743 .795 1

Part 4, Page: 114

Faculty Scales

Table 2: Correlations of Faculty Rating Scales with Student Scales

PostCommunSkills PostEffProjectMgt PostIntelEngagement PostCrThinkSkills

PostPrepBreadth .036 .058 .092 .037

PostPrepDisc .079 .140 .092 .082

PostPrepQuant ‐.006 .066 ‐.039 .022

PostMentorRel .111 .125 .189 .182

PostCapContDev .146 .208 .205 .203

PostCapMoreEngaging ‐.010 .110 .102 .097

PostCapSuccessful .142 .232 .232 .247

PostSatisInstr .179 .192 .185 .212

PostSatisSuppSrv .042 .052 .015 .040

PostCivicOrient .027 .116 .074 .058

PostHighOrderCogn .143 .121 .162 .143

PostExhibScholarlySkills .228 .269 .245 .271

PostNeedCognLite .076 .076 .151 .115

PostMultPerspectives .067 .127 .152 .095

PostProjMgt .222 .321 .211 .276

PostRatingAcadAbil .250 .171 .270 .245

PostRatingLeadCollabSkills ‐.028 .074 .116 .053

PostRatingIndepVoice .042 .020 .061 .004

PostResearchOrient .229 .239 .263 .281

PostRatingStriver .167 .225 .183 .205

PostStatusCareerOrient .101 .097 .087 .123

DSatisInstr .155 .125 .084 .147

DSatisSuppSrv .031 .027 ‐.002 .018

DCivicOrient .021 .014 ‐.029 ‐.032

DHighOrderCogn .045 .005 .064 ‐.002

DExhibScholarlySkills .062 .040 .049 .049

DNeedCognLite ‐.003 .038 ‐.002 ‐.009

DMultPerspectives .019 .050 .032 ‐.002

DProjMgt .062 .122 .097 .155

DRatingAcadAbil .002 ‐.010 .004 ‐.017

DRatingCollabSkills .089 .120 .116 .075

DRatingIndepVoice .142 .057 .074 .073

DRatingStriver .023 ‐.026 .024 ‐.008

DResearchOrient .012 ‐.059 ‐.056 .000

DStatusCareerOrient .047 ‐.001 .050 .065

Part 4, Page: 115

CAPSTONE PROJECT SENIOR AND MENTOR SURVEYS DATA DIRECTORYThis document is a quick reference for the response scales, labels, and means of ALL the Sr and Mentor survey questions. It reports and compares the means for the 2009 and 2010 surveys. The comparisons

NOT RESTRICTED TO PAIRED PRE/POST RESPONDENTS, AS IN THE REPORT BY SCALES Data is for all non‐duplicate records (not just paired pre/post records). SS includes busadm, teacher ed

Conditional highlighting used only if differences are statistically signifcant. MEANS BY DIVISION MEANS BY GPA GROUP MEANS BY GENDER MEANS BY SCHOOLline SPSS Name Description or Question Text NS SS+ HUM ALL Sig L M H ALL Sig M F ALL Sig R T W Y ALL Sig1 STUDENT AND FACULTY BIODEMO DATA

195 How helpful were each of the following for completion of your capstone? 196 PostStu34 Courses outside my major(s) and minor(s) 1.95 2.13 2.21 2.10 *** 2.09 2.08 2.12 2.10 2.07 2.11 2.10 2.18 2.17 2.05 1.99 2.10 **197 PostStu35 Courses in my major(s) or minors(s) 3.52 3.40 3.48 3.45 ** 3.41 3.44 3.52 3.46 * 3.45 3.47 3.46 3.46 3.45 3.43 3.50 3.46 198 PostStu36 A research methods or skills course 3.04 2.90 2.46 2.83 *** 2.95 2.86 2.72 2.83 ** 2.73 2.88 2.83 ** 2.90 2.65 2.71 2.93 2.83 ***199 PostStu37 A junior or senior seminar 2.99 2.84 2.80 2.87 * 2.90 2.85 2.87 2.87 2.81 2.90 2.87 2.98 2.67 2.50 3.02 2.87 ***200 PostStu38 Assistance from librarians or use of library services 2.23 2.32 2.33 2.30 2.34 2.32 2.28 2.31 2.25 2.34 2.31 2.27 2.41 2.10 2.37 2.31 **201 PostStu39 Training in quantitative methods (statistics, tables, graphs, mathematical modeling,…) 2.81 2.48 1.55 2.39 *** 2.42 2.44 2.33 2.39 2.39 2.39 2.39 2.45 2.19 2.36 2.51 2.39 ***202 PostStu40 Training or experience with computer techniques (spreadsheets, Internet, programming, presentation

f )2.92 2.50 1.93 2.49 *** 2.51 2.57 2.41 2.49 * 2.56 2.46 2.49 2.46 2.42 2.45 2.60 2.49

203 PostStu41 Study abroad experiences 2.03 2.44 2.54 2.39 *** 2.31 2.48 2.40 2.41 2.35 2.44 2.41 2.55 2.23 2.43 2.40 2.41 *204 PostStu42 My job or internship experiences 2.65 2.54 2.26 2.49 *** 2.35 2.54 2.53 2.50 * 2.43 2.53 2.50 2.37 2.70 2.55 2.43 2.50 ***205 PostStu43 Volunteer experiences 1.87 2.17 2.07 2.07 *** 2.17 2.04 2.03 2.06 1.91 2.14 2.06 *** 1.98 2.29 2.08 1.95 2.06 ***206 PostStu44 My non‐academic interests/experiences 2.41 2.80 2.95 2.74 *** 2.84 2.70 2.73 2.74 2.73 2.75 2.74 2.78 2.79 2.70 2.68 2.74 207 PostStu201 A research project/experience 3.11 2.87 2.77 2.91 2.89 2.96 2.87 2.91 2.91 2.91 2.91 2.94 2.89 2.70 2.95 2.91

1 11/11/2011

Part 4, Page: 116

TimothySchermer

Text Box

Concerning helpfulness as preparation, at the Fall 2011 conference the high rating for "non-academic experiences" was noted, it being higher than "courses outside my major(s) and minors(s), and the question was asked whether this differed by division. The table above shows this relative ranking is consistent across divisions, GPA groups, genders and schools. The table also shows there are a number of statistically significant differences in preparation ratings for various student sub-groups. Note that this data is based on all capstone records, not just the paired pre/post records in some of our other tables, and some means may, therefore, be slightly different from those reported elsewhere.

TimothySchermer

Text Box

Appendix 4.5: Capstone Preparation Data from the Post- Capstone Senior Survey

Appendix 4.6: Means of Student and Faculty Workload and Topic Selection and Enthusiasm Questions

Report - Student ResponsesWorkload Measures Topic Selection and Enthusiasm

School

CredHrs Total Capstone semester

hours

CapGrade Capstone grade (if more than one , average grade)

GradColGPA College GPA

– final at graduation

PostStu52 On average, how many hours per week did you spend interacting with your capstone mentor in individual or group

meetings relating to the capstone?

Median

PostStu53 On average, how many hours per week did you spend

working on ALL aspects of your capstone

combined?

Median

PostStu211 What was the origin of the idea for your capstone topic?

PostStu212 To what extent did

you participate in developing/refinin

g the topic for your capstone?

PostStu213 How satisfied were you with the process used to select your capstone

topic?

PostStu214 When the project

started, how enthusiastic were

you about your capstone topic?

PostStu215 When the project ended, how enthusiastic were you about your capstone

topic?

1 Yellow Mean 3.97 3.22 3.24 2.98 2.00 15.70 12.00 3.90 4.36 4.01 4.22 4.012 Tan Mean 5.00 3.61 3.37 3.80 2.00 11.91 8.00 3.86 4.26 4.00 4.03 4.073 White Mean 3.64 3.14 3.22 2.77 2.00 12.65 10.00 4.14 4.11 4.03 4.18 3.964 Red Mean 8.00 3.08 3.26 2.07 1.50 14.73 12.00 3.93 4.26 4.14 4.36 4.25Total Mean 5.33 3.26 3.28 2.86 2.00 14.11 10.00 3.92 4.28 4.05 4.21 4.09

Report - Facutly Responses

School

PostFac34 Estimate the average hours per

week you spent meeting (individually or in a group setting) with this student as mentor:

Median

PostFac35 Estimate the average total hours per week you spent working

on this student's capstone (meetings, email, reading drafts,

etc.):

Median

PostFac36 Did the core idea for

the student's capstone originate with the student?

PostFac37 To what extent did

you participate in developing/refining the topic for his /

her capstone?

PostFac38 To what extent did

the student participate in developing /

refining his /her capstone topic?

PostFac39 When the project

started, how enthusiastic was the student about

the topic?

PostFac40 When the project ended, how enthusiastic was the student about the topic?

Mean 1 Yellow Mean 1.81 1.25 2.25 2.00 4.15 3.48 4.02 4.25 4.26Mean 2 Tan Mean 2.12 2.00 4.24 2.00 4.12 3.31 3.98 4.06 4.20Mean 3 White Mean 1.41 1.00 2.88 2.00 4.48 3.39 3.87 4.13 4.10Mean 4 Red Mean 1.58 1.00 3.06 2.00 4.34 3.50 4.12 4.48 4.48Mean Total Mean 1.72 1.00 2.97 2.00 4.27 3.43 4.00 4.24 4.27

Because of several outliers reporting a large number of hours, the medians have been added to the questionsfor the questions about the hours per week spendt on capstone activities.

Part 4, Page: 117

Appendix 4.7 What correlates with expecting to have a good capstone?

Table 1. Correlations. Sorted in descending order.PreExpectGoodCapstone Student expects capstone experience to be helpful

PreStu73 My capstone will lead to a better understanding of my skills, abilities and interests 0.769PreStu70 My ability to think critically and analytically will improve 0.751PreStu75 My capstone will better prepare me for a job or graduate school 0.738PreStu74 My capstone will help me clarify my career or graduate school objectives 0.723PreStu71 My understanding of my discipline will improve 0.713PreStu69 My oral presentation skills will improve 0.711PreStu68 My writing skills will improve 0.703PreStu67 My capstone will be more engaging than my regular course work 0.657PreStu72 I expect to create new knowledge in my discipline 0.657PreStu66 My capstone will be intellectually challenging 0.597

Table 2. Correlations. Sorted in descending order.PreExpectGoodCapstone Student expects capstone experience to be helpfulPreStu76 I expect to be comfortable working with my faculty mentor(s) 0.461PreExhibScholarlySkills During the past year, student exhibited scholarly skills 0.363PreHighOrderCogn Use of higher order cognitive thinking skills 0.333PreMultPerspectives2 Using behaviors showing interest in examining ideas from multiple perspectives

0.323PreStu18 I enjoy doing research 0.318PreSatisSuppSrv Satisfaction with academic support services 0.308PreResearchOrient Enjoyment of research 0.307PreSatisInstr Satisfaction with instruction 0.298PreNeedCognLite Abbreviated version of Need for Cognition 0.281PreStu57 Applying theories or concepts to practical problems or in new situations 0.277PreStu58 Integrated ideas or information from various sources 0.270PreStu65 Learned something that changed the way you understand an issue or concept 0.261

A GLM showed that expecting a good capstone is one of the strongest predictors or the student's rating of the capstone as successful. So it is of interest to understand what goes into students' expectation of a good capstone and asking if any of the component items should be considered in student capstone preparation, capstone administration, or our statements to students about the rational for the capstone. It was suggested at the 2011 conference that high expectations might mostly represent a positive world view.

Table 1 shows the component items of the ExpectGoodCapstone scale. Although all items correlate highly, the strongest are expecting to understand their own skills and abilities better, develop CT skills, and preparation for a job or graduate school. Fortunately, our evidence is that students expectations are largely met.

Table 2 lists selected other questions from the pre-capstone survey that one might expect would correlate. The strongest correlate, perhaps surprisingly, is that the student expects to be comfortable working with his/her mentor. The other strongest correlates reflect the student's having exhibited during the prior year the type of behaviors and skills needed for the capstone, having a positive disposition toward research and using research related skills, and pre-capstone satisfaction with support services. Perhaps also surprising is that among the lowest correlates are the students self-ratings of their ability.

Part 4, Page: 118

PreStu39 I used feedback to assess my performance 0.256PreStu38 I showed originality 0.247PreStu55 Synthesizing and organizing ideas, information, or experiences into new, more complex interpretations and relationships 0.245PreCivicOrient Orientation toward civic engagement 0.244PreProjMgt Exhibiting good project management skills 0.244PreStu36 I showed evidence of independent thinking 0.243PreStu41 I used disciplinary knowledge and methods appropriately 0.243PreStu60 Put together ideas or concepts from different courses 0.243PreStu61 Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with faculty members outside of class

0.240PreStu42 I synthesized information to produce insights that expanded my understanding 0.239PreStu56 Making judgments about the value of information, arguments, or methods, such as examining how others gathered and interpreted data and assessing the soundness of their conclusions

0.239PreStu62 Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with others outside of class (students, family members, co-workers, etc.) 0.229PreStu63 Examined the strengths and weaknesses of your own views on a topic or issue 0.227PreStu40 I located appropriate source material 0.225PreStu37 I persisted when faced with conceptual and practical difficulties 0.223PreStu43 I supported my arguments with appropriate evidence 0.223PreStu34 I identified manageable sets of goals for my projects 0.221PreStu54 Analyzing the basic elements of an idea, experience, or theory, such as examining a particular case or situation in depth and considering its components 0.218PreStu59 Included diverse perspectives (different races, religions, gender, political beliefs, etc.) 0.217PreStu35 I properly planned tasks to achieve project goals 0.215PreRatingStriver Self rating of drive to achieve and persistence 0.213PreStatusCareerOrient Desire to have a prestigious, high paying, high achieving career 0.212PreStu64 Tried to better understand someone else’s views by imagining how an issue looks from his or her perspective 0.210PreStu31 Research skills 0.209PreStu45 I demonstrated effective time management in completing tasks 0.199PreStu44 I demonstrated good communication skills 0.198PreStu16 I really enjoy a task that involves coming up with new solutions to problems 0.198PreStu21 Drive to achieve 0.194PreStu24 Persistence 0.181PreStu17 The notion of thinking abstractly is appealing to me 0.171PreStu46 I showed skill with quantitative reasoning 0.169PreRatingIndepVoice Self rating of understanding of self/others and ability to think on their own 0.166PreStu27 Self-confidence (social) 0.161PreRatingCollabSkills Self rating of group collaboration skills 0.150PreStu14 I enjoy expressing my ideas in writing 0.149PreStu28 Understanding of others 0.148PreRatingAcadAbil Self rating of academic ability 0.122PreStu22 Leadership ability 0.122PreStu32 Ability to think and act on my own 0.119PreStu30 Ability to think critically 0.117PreStu29 Self-understanding 0.107PreStu15 I have confidence in my opinions, even if they are contrary to the general consensus 0.098PreStu33 Writing ability 0.083PreStu77 My capstone will be very stressful 0.083PreStu26 Self-confidence (intellectual) 0.080PreStu20 Creativity 0.079PreStu25 Public speaking ability 0.078PreStu19 Academic ability 0.055PreStu23 Mathematical ability 0.020All correlations are significant at least the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Part 4, Page: 119

Appendix 4.8: Success: What pre‐ and post‐capstone measures are associated with a successful capstone?

Note: General Linear Models (GLM) are designed to predict the value of an independent variable, in this case the student’s rating of a successful capstone. As such, a highly correlated variable that doesn’t differentiate between students may not enter the GLM model. Consequently In the interpretation of the model, our results on correlations should be kept in mind (see table below), as well as the analysis of student and faculty comments.

Summary: Pre‐capstone predictors of success are expecting a good capstone, pre‐capstone use of good project management skills, and a higher research orientation. Post‐capstone student measures associated with success are ownership of the project, the quality of the mentor relationship, being successful at project management, and particularly good preparation through areas and courses outside the major. Faculty measures associated with success include, most notably, strong student motivation for the topic and CT skills, and capstones in the natural sciences.

Pre‐capstone Student Measures, GLM 1

An initial GLM was done using the following listed variables:

UNIANOVA PostCapSuccessful BY school Gender capmajdivall WITH precapcolgpa PreExpectGoodCapstone PreSatisSuppSrv PreCivicOrient PreHighOrderCogn PreExhibScholarlySkills PreNeedCognLite PreMultPerspectives2 PreProjMgt PreRatingAcadAbil PreRatingCollabSkills PreRatingIndepVoice

PreRatingStriver PreResearchOrient PreStatusCareerOrient

The resulting model, reduced to the variables with a significant B coefficient, p<=.05 was:

Rsq = .350

Parameter Estimates

Dependent Variable:PostCapSuccessful Overall assessment of the capstone as a successful experience.

Parameter B Std. Error t Sig.

PreExpectGoodCapstone .502 .036 13.932 .000

PreCivicOrient .110 .035 3.155 .002

PreProjMgt .134 .029 4.625 .000

PreRatingAcadAbil -.097 .050 -1.962 .050

PreResearchOrient .109 .026 4.137 .000

[school=Red] * [Gender=F] .201 .096 2.089 .037

[school=Tan] * [Gender=F] .212 .108 1.962 .050

[school=White] * [Gender=F] -.262 .125 -2.101 .036

[school=Tan] * [Capmajdivall=1.00] .332 .129 2.577 .010

Part 4, Page: 120

Rerunning GLM with only the significant variables from this first set resulted in the model:

rsq=.342 Parameter Estimates

Dependent Variable:PostCapSuccessful Overall assessment of the capstone as a successful experience.


Intercept .646 .205 3.158 .002

PreExpectGoodCapstone .520 .033 15.703 .000

PreCivicOrient .144 .031 4.589 .000

PreProjMgt .143 .025 5.748 .000

PreResearchOrient .112 .025 4.417 .000

[school=Red] * [Gender=F] .199 .095 2.099 .036

[school=Tan] * [Gender=F] .213 .108 1.979 .048

[school=White] * [Gender=F] -.277 .124 -2.226 .026

[school=Tan] * [Capmajdivall=1.00] .341 .128 2.664 .008

What emerged was curious for both what was included and excluded.

Items included that intuitively make sense are:

PreExpectGoodCapstone PreProjMgt PreResearchOrient

On the other hand, that PreCivicOrientation remained in the model while things like pre‐capstone GPA, self rating of academic ability, and pre‐capstone use of higher order cognition did not seems puzzling. Also notable is that the credit hours of the capstone was not a significant variable.

The school*gender interaction is also notable, particularly since the coefficient changes to a negative sign for females from White. The big positive coefficient for natural science majors for Tan is also interesting. Perhaps while Tan is gearing up the capstone the natural science departments, which have a longer history of senior research, have a more developed program, or, noting the wide variability in the capstone structures at Tan, the natural science capstones are closer to the standard independent research model.

With regard to our research question about universality, note that, other than the result for Tan, the academic division of the capstone, and the pre‐capstone GPA of the student did not enter into the model. We should, however, consider whether the gender*school effect has a reasonable explanation

Post‐capstone Student Measures, GLM 2

An initial GLM was done using the following listed variables:

Part 4, Page: 121

UNIANOVA PostCapSuccessful BY school Gender capmajdivall WITH precapcolgpa

PostStu52 On average, how many hours per week did you spend interacting with your capstone mentor in individual or group meetings relating to the capstone?

PostStu53 On average, how many hours per week did you spend working on ALL aspects of your capstone combined?

PostStu211 What was the origin of the idea for your capstone topic?

PostStu212 To what extent did you participate in developing/refining the topic for your capstone?

CredHrs Total Capstone semester hours

poststu202 Prior experience: Course‐embedded research project

poststu203 Prior experience: Course‐embedded performance/creative project

poststu204 Prior experience: Summer research project (more than four weeks)

poststu205 Prior experience: Summer research project (more than four weeks)

poststu206 Prior experience: Research assistant for a faculty project

poststu207 Prior experience: Independent study course/project

poststu208 Prior experience: Research assistant during the academic year

poststu209 Prior experience: Assistance/apprenticeship with performance/creative project

PostPrepBreadth

PostPrepDisc

PostPrepQuant

PostMentorRel

PostCapContDev

PostCapMoreEngaging

PostSatisInstr

PostSatisSuppSrv

PostCivicOrient

PostHighOrderCogn

PostExhibScholarlySkills

PostNeedCognLite

PostMultPerspectives2

PostProjMgt

PostRatingAcadAbil

PostRatingCollabSkills

PostRatingIndepVoice

PostResearchOrient

PostRatingStriver

PostStatusCareerOrient

After removing the non-significant parameters and rerunning the final model was:

rsq=.636

Part 4, Page: 122

Parameter Estimates Dependent Variable:PostCapSuccessful Overall assessment of the capstone as a successful experience.


Intercept -.345 .142 -2.439 .015

PostStu209 .159 .054 2.952 .003

PostPrepBreadth .110 .020 5.458 .000

PostMentorRel .096 .023 4.155 .000

PostCapContDev .470 .029 16.292 .000

PostCapMoreEngaging .272 .021 12.711 .000

PostSatisInstr .090 .030 3.043 .002

PostProjMgt .098 .021 4.577 .000

If PostCapContDev is consider a surrogate for successful capstone and removed, the model is:

rsq=.528 Parameter Estimates Dependent Variable:PostCapSuccessful Overall assessment of the capstone as a successful experience.


Intercept -.147 .153 -.956 .339

PostStu209 .153 .060 2.544 .011

PostPrepBreadth .172 .022 7.728 .000

PostMentorRel .153 .026 5.926 .000

PostCapMoreEngaging .402 .021 18.758 .000

PostSatisInstr .161 .032 5.113 .000

PostProjMgt .180 .023 7.751 .000

We might conclude based on this model that the some particularly significant variables contributing to a successful capstone, as perceived by the student, are ownership of the project, the quality of the mentor relationship, being successful at project management, and particularly good preparation through areas and courses outside the major.

Note that PostStu209 is probably in the model because it has an add on effect in the presence of the other variables specific to arts majors, and that preparation in the major, for instance, which correlates highly with PostCapContDev, is probably not in the model because it is uniformly high, in student perceptions, and isn’t needed to as a differentiating variable.

Part 4, Page: 123

Faculty Pre‐ and Post‐capstone Measures, GLM 3

The GLM model included all the faculty scales from both the pre‐ and post‐capstone surveys along with school, gender, and academic division:

UNIANOVA PostCapSuccessful BY school gender Capmajdivall WITH

capgrade

PreCommunSkills

PreEffProjectMgt

PreIntelEngagement

PreCrThinkSkills

PostCommunSkills

PostEffProjectMgt

PostIntelEngagement

PostCrThinkSkills

PostStudentTopicMotiv

PostMentorInstruction

PostMentorRapport

In the resulting model only 3 variables were statistically significant, and a revised model with only those variables is shown below. Note that the r square value of .109 indicates this model only explains about 10% of the variance in PostCapSuccessful, possibly because faculty are generally happy with student performance and were not very discriminating in their responses. Note, however the prominence of the student being motivated to study the topic, which suggests good practices would include attention to topic selection and development.

rsq=.109

Parameter Estimates Dependent Variable:PostCapSuccessful Overall assessment of the capstone as a successful experience.

Parameter B Std. Error T Sig.

Intercept 2.624 .145 18.061 .000

PostCrThinkSkills .051 .031 1.658 .098

PostStudentTopicMotiv .270 .036 7.498 .000

[Capmajdivall=1.00] NS .210 .057 3.713 .000

[Capmajdivall=2.00] SS .048 .053 .897 .370

[Capmajdivall=3.00] HUM 0 . . .

Part 4, Page: 124

Correlations with PostCapSuccessful

Correlation is statistically significant p<=.05, two tailed, unless the description is highlighted grey

PostCapSuccessful Overall assessment of the capstone as

a successful experience. PostCapSuccessful Overall assessment of the capstone as a successful experience.

1

PreCapColGPA College GPA - Start of capstone year .057

PreExpectGoodCapstone Student expects capstone experience to be helpful

.518

PreSatisSuppSrv Satisfaction with academic support services .162

PreCivicOrient Orientation toward civic engagement .255

PreHighOrderCogn Use of higher order cognitive thinking skills .220

PreExhibScholarlySkills During the past year, student exhibited scholarly skills

.254

PreNeedCognLite Abbreviated version of Need for Cognition .213

PreMultPerspectives2 Using behaviors showing interest in examining ideas from multiple perspectives

.209

PreProjMgt Exhibiting good project management skills .279

PreRatingAcadAbil Self rating of academic ability .099

PreRatingCollabSkills Self rating of group collaboration skills .181

PreRatingIndepVoice Self rating of understanding of self/others and ability to think on their own

.155

PreRatingStriver Self rating of drive to achieve and persistence .269

PreResearchOrient Enjoyment of research .257

PreStatusCareerOrient Desire to have a prestigious, high paying, high achieving career

.167

PostStu52 On average, how many hours per week did you spend interacting with your capstone mentor in individual or group meetings relating to the capstone?

.173

PostStu53 On average, how many hours per week did you spend working on ALL aspects of your capstone combined?

.214

PostStu211 What was the origin of the idea for your capstone topic? .022

PostStu212 To what extent did you participate in developing/refining the topic for your capstone?

.200

CredHrs Total Capstone semester hours .064

PostStu202 Prior experience: Course-embedded research project .004

PostStu203 Prior experience: Course-embedded performance/creative project

.002

PostStu204 Prior experience: Summer research project (more than four weeks)

.021

PostStu205 Prior experience: Summer research project (more than four weeks)

.137

PostStu206 Prior experience: Research assistant for a faculty project .110

PostStu207 Prior experience: Independent study course/project .095

PostStu208 Prior experience: Research assistant during the academic year

.120

Part 4, Page: 125

PostStu209 Prior experience: Assistance/apprenticeship with performance/creative project

.152


.313

PostPrepDisc Helpfulness as preparation for the capstone of areas that are grounded in the disciplinary major of the capstone.

.324

PostPrepQuant Helpfulness as preparation for the capstone of quantitative or computer based techniques.

.153

PostMentorRel Helpful and comfortable relationship with the mentor. .410


.698

PostCapMoreEngaging Rating of the capstone as more or less intellectually engaging than a regular course.

.582

PostSatisInstr Satisfaction with instruction. .386

PostSatisSuppSrv Satisfaction with academic support services (library, computer, facilities/equipment supporting their major).

.178

PostCivicOrient Orientation toward civic engagement. .261


.420

PostExhibScholarlySkills During the past academic year (pre) or during the capstone (post) the student exhibited scholarly skills.

.505

PostNeedCognLite An abbreviated version of the Need for Cognition scale designed to measure interest in or enjoyment of higher order cognition.

.292

PostMultPerspectives2 Using behaviors showing interest in examining ideas from multiple perspectives

.397

PostProjMgt Exhibiting good project management skills. .417

PostRatingAcadAbil Student's self rating of his/her academic ability. .169

PostRatingCollabSkills Student's self rating of his/her group collaboration skills.

.182

PostRatingIndepVoice Student's self rating of his/her understanding of themselves and others and ability to think on their own.

.188

PostResearchOrient Student's self rating of his/her drive to achieve and persistence.

.330

PostRatingStriver Enjoyment of research. .274

PostStatusCareerOrient Desire to have a prestigious, high paying, and high achieving career.

.213

Part 4, Page: 126

Comparison of Single vs. Double Majors: Differences in Scale Means Statistically significant differences (two tailed). Scale single majs dbl majs differences: dbl-single

Pre scales in green, post in red N mean N mean diff. sig. sig.PostMultPerspectives2 Using behaviors showing interest in examining ideas from multiple perspectives 662 2.77 423 2.99 .21 .000 ***

PreRatingAcadAbil Self rating of academic ability 734 3.82 497 4.02 .19 .000 ***PostRatingAcadAbil Student's self rating of his/her academic ability. 700 3.90 449 4.09 .19 .000 ***

DMultPerspectives2 Chg: Using behaviors that exhibit an interest in examining ideas from a multiplicity of perspectives. 471 -.25 330 -.11 .15 .001 **

PostResearchOrient Student's self rating of his/her drive to achieve and persistence. 700 3.73 449 3.87 .14 .003 **

PreNeedCognLite Abbreviated version of Need for Cognition 736 3.87 497 4.00 .13 .000 ***

PreResearchOrient Enjoyment of research 735 3.57 497 3.70 .12 .005 **

PreRatingStriver Self rating of drive to achieve and persistence 734 4.00 497 4.11 .11 .006 **

PostPrepBreadth Helpfulness as preparation for the capstone of areas that add educational breadth. 690 2.28 447 2.38 .10 .024 *

PostHighOrderCogn Use of higher order cognitive thinking skills (analyzing, synthesizing, judgments, applying theories). 664 3.14 425 3.24 .10 .010 **

PreExhibScholarlySkills During the past year, student exhibited scholarly skills 734 4.12 497 4.22 .10 .000 ***

PreProjMgt Exhibiting good project management skills 731 3.85 497 3.95 .10 .026 *PreMultPerspectives2 Using behaviors showing interest in examining ideas from multiple perspectives 706 3.02 488 3.11 .09 .010 *

PostStatusCareerOrient Desire to have a prestigious, high paying, and high achieving career. 701 2.65 449 2.57 -.08 .041 *

PreExpectGoodCapstone Student expects capstone experience to be helpful 711 4.21 491 4.13 -.08 .017 *

PostCapMoreEngaging Rating of the capstone as more or less intellectually engaging than a regular course. 663 4.21 422 4.10 -.11 .027 *

DProjMgt Chg: Exhibiting good project management skills. 480 .16 331 .04 -.12 .020 *

Appendix 4.9: Are double majors different on our scales than single majors?

Almost 39% of the students in our database are double-majors, so how double-majoring affects the capstone experience is a significant question. The table below indicates scales where the differences in the means were statistically significant. Double majors had higher means on multiple perspectives, self ratings of academic ability, orientation toward research, and use of higher order cognition during the capstone. They were less likely to expect a good capstone, and less likely to find the capstone more engaging then a regular course. Double majors had a smaller pre/post decline in multipleperspectives, and a smaller increase in reporting they exhibited good project management, which may be a particular difficulty when managing a combined capstone.

Note that the capstone successful and capstone contribution to development scales did NOT show statistically significant differences.

Part 4, Page: 127

Appendix 4.9 (Continued): Crosstab of First and Second Majors for Double Majors

13 teacher education

23 languages/lit/commun

24 humanities

30 self-designed

major

40 natural sciences/m

ath45 social sciences

50 visual and

performing arts

52 business 99

23 languages/lit/commun 5 34 7 2 31 78 11 13 0 18124 humanities 0 13 4 0 7 32 3 1 0 6030 self-designed major 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 240 natural sciences/math 0 8 3 0 68 25 7 1 1 11345 social sciences 0 58 20 0 37 130 15 19 0 27950 visual and performing arts 4 31 3 0 5 15 3 3 0 64

52 business 2 5 1 0 4 15 3 30 0 6099 - Single major only 44 198 39 1 308 478 71 56 7 1202

55 347 77 3 460 775 113 123 8 1961

Double majors crosstabulated by major CIP code category. 759 double majors vs. 1202 single.

GradMaj1CIP4 Primary major COMCIP4

TotalGradMaj2CIP4 Major 2 CIP COMCIP4

Total

Part 4, Page: 128

Appendix 4.10 Independence ‐ Correlations of Indepence Related Questions

Correlations of survey items relating to "independence".

PostFac27 Independence:

Showing autonomy and initiative in thought and

actions

PostFac206 I encouraged

this student to work

independently

PostStu216 My mentor

encouraged my independence

PostStu69 I showed

evidence of independent thinking

PostStu32 Ability to think and act on my

own

PostStu88 Having

confidence in my own abilities

PostStu95 Ability to think

creatively

PostStu5 Creating original works

PostStu15 I have

confidence in my opinions,

even if they are contrary to the

general consensus

PostStu16 I really enjoy a task that involves coming up with new solutions to problems

PostStu26 Self‐

confidence (intellectual)

PostStu27 Self‐confidence (social)

PostStu71 I showed originality

PostFac27 Independence: Showing autonomy and initiative in thought and actions

.313** .118** .170** .136** .170** .079* .102** .054 .103** .186** ‐.013 .127**

PostFac206 I encouraged this student to work independently

.313** .090* .092* .070 .125** .048 .076 .003 .004 .101* ‐.030 .084*

PostStu216 My mentor encouraged my independence .118** .090* .286** .169** .327** .279** .078* .088** .132** .122** .082* .188**

PreStu5 Creating original works .034 .062 .063 .201** .123** .128** .238** .542** .161** .220** .092** .064* .232**

PreStu15 I have confidence in my opinions, even if they are contrary to the general consensus

‐.019 ‐.069 .040 .168** .282** .131** .081** .150** .534** .272** .322** .247** .173**

PreStu16 I really enjoy a task that involves coming up with new solutions to problems

‐.018 ‐.004 .065 .183** .204** .135** .135** .218** .277** .539** .203** .133** .159**

PreStu26 Self‐confidence (intellectual) .090** .037 .087* .145** .338** .135** .054 .132** .327** .215** .598** .301** .134**

PreStu27 Self‐confidence (social) ‐.054 ‐.082* .043 .046 .199** .171** .110** .078** .209** .115** .279** .658** .078**

PreStu32 Ability to think and act on my own .053 .061 .072 .143** .424** .102** .030 .112** .315** .218** .309** .265** .120**

PostStu5 Creating original works .102** .076 .078* .205** .152** .194** .297** .213** .285** .141** .072** .283**

PostStu15 I have confidence in my opinions, even if they are contrary to the general consensus

.054 .003 .088** .246** .361** .152** .113** .213** .388** .368** .270** .211**

PostStu16 I really enjoy a task that involves coming up with new solutions to problems

.103** .004 .132** .241** .283** .202** .184** .285** .388** .266** .155** .188**

PostStu26 Self‐confidence (intellectual) .186** .101* .122** .227** .409** .212** .090** .141** .368** .266** .403** .184**

PostStu27 Self‐confidence (social) ‐.013 ‐.030 .082* .105** .315** .194** .097** .072** .270** .155** .403** .107**

PostStu32 Ability to think and act on my own .136** .070 .169** .300** .189** .115** .152** .361** .283** .409** .315** .219**

PostStu69 I showed evidence of independent thinking .170** .092* .286** .300** .367** .319** .205** .246** .241** .227** .105** .543**

PostStu71 I showed originality .127** .084* .188** .543** .219** .338** .425** .283** .211** .188** .184** .107**

PostStu88 Having confidence in my own abilities .170** .125** .327** .367** .189** .492** .194** .152** .202** .212** .194** .338**

PostStu95 Ability to think creatively .079* .048 .279** .319** .115** .492** .297** .113** .184** .090** .097** .425**

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2‐tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2‐tailed).

Going from the prescriptive assignments of most regular courses to the self‐authorship requirements of a capsonte is a significant transition. This is an exploratory table pertaining to the concept of showing independence during the capstone. Notable is the low correlation of faculty and student reports of the mentor encouraging independence. Does this indicate disagreement? Also modest are the correlations of the faculty summative rating of indepence in thought and action and student reports of performance on related items.

Part 4, Page: 129

Appendix 4.11: How do mentor ratings of the casptone, as indicated by the capstone grade, compare with student ratings of the capstone?

The SPSS output below is in response to a question of whether the grade assigned by the faculty member correlated with the student's rating of the capstone as successful or of it's contribution to development. For an addition comparison, the table also looks at the correlation of the pre‐capstone college GPA with the student's capstone ratings.

The student's ratings of the capstone for success or contribution to development appears to have very little correlation with the student's pre‐capstone GPA. This might be seen as evidence that capstones can be successfully conducted by students at all GPA levels, at least in terms of their own assessment of the outcomes.

Similary, the capstone grade awarded by the mentor has a only a small postitive correlation with the student's self ratings. Scatterplots show that at all capstone grade levels, students

PostCapSuccessful Overall assessment of

the capstone as a successful experience.

PostCapContDev Rating of the

contribution of the capstone to the development of scholarly skills.

PreCapColGPA College GPA -


CapGrade Capstone grade (if

more than one , average grade)

Pearson Correlation 1 .698** .057* .227**

Similary, the capstone grade awarded by the mentor has a only a small postitive correlation with the student s self ratings. Scatterplots show that at all capstone grade levels, students have a fairly wide distribution of self ratings on the two measures. It may be that the mentor's grade is focused most heavily on the product produced by the capstone, while the student's ratings reflect a broader assessment that includes the process and impact on them personally.

PostCapSuccessful Overall assessment of the capstone as a successful experience.

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .019 .000

N 1675 1672 1673 1437

Pearson Correlation .698** 1 .035 .149**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .156 .000

N 1672 1672 1670 1434

Pearson Correlation .057* .035 1 .565**

Sig. (2-tailed) .019 .156 .000

N 1673 1670 3002 2418

Pearson Correlation .227** .149** .565** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000

N 1437 1434 2418 2421


PreCapColGPA College GPA - Start of capstone year

CapGrade Capstone grade (if more than one , average grade)

N 1437 1434 2418 2421

GRADE VS. SUCCESSFUL RATING

5

6

3

4

5

2

3

0

1

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Grade

Part 4, Page: 130

Grade vs. Contribution to Development

5

6

Grade vs. Cont Development

3

4

5

2

3

0

1

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Grade

Part 4, Page: 131

PART 5: SENIOR POST CAPSTONE SURVEY COMMENTS This is an analysis of responses to the open‐ended questions on the post‐capstone survey of students completing capstones in academic years 2009/10 and 2010/11. The tables are based on the counts after deconstructing the comments into topical coded units.

Narrative – Analysis of Student Responses to the Post‐capstone Open‐Ended Questions

Tables of Counts by Topical Units

Question 1: “Please describe any particularly positive or negative aspects of your capstone experience.”

• Table Student Q1‐ 1: Detailed Tally by Topic • Table Student Q1‐ 2: Summary of Tally of Student Comments by Topic Group • Table Student Q1 ‐ 3: Percents of Responses by Topic Group

Question 2: “What did you learn about yourself as a result of your capstone?”

• Table Student Q2 – 1: Detailed Tally to Topic • Table Student Q2 – 2: Summary Counts by Topic Group • Table Student Q2 – 3: Percents of Responses by Topic Group

Question 3: “What aspects of your capstone experience do you think will be of most value to you after you graduate?”

• Table Student Q – 1: Detailed Tally to Topic • Table Student Q3 – 2: Summary Counts by Topic Group • Table Student Q3 – 3: Percents of Responses by Topic Group

Question 4: “Please tell us about any other aspects of your capstone experience that might be helpful to our study of the benefits of capstones.”

• Table Student Q4 – 1: Detailed Tally to Topic • Table Student Q4 – 2: Summary Counts by Topic Group • Table Student Q4 – 3: Percents of Responses by Topic Group

Part 5, Page: 1

blank page

Part 5, Page: 2

Analysis of Student Responses to the Post‐Capstone Open‐Ended Questions

Introduction – Questions and Table Descriptions

These notes discuss the comments engendered by the four open‐ended questions on the student post‐capstone survey:

• Q1: Please describe any particularly positive or negative aspects of your capstone experience.

• Q2: What did you learn about yourself as a result of your capstone experience? • Q3: What aspects of your capstone experience do you think will be of most value to you

after you graduate? • Q4: Please tell us about any other aspects of your capstone experience that might be

helpful to our study of the benefits of capstones.

In 2009‐10, Q1 appeared as shown above. In 2010/11, it was split into two questions so that students responded for the positive and negative areas in separate responses.

The general methodology has been to deconstruct the comments into discrete topical coding units, assign each of these coding units an ID number, and to assign to each comment as many as five coding units, as appropriate. For each survey question, the basic coding units have also been grouped into a hierarchical structure, which while certainly only one of many categorization structures, seemed useful in relation to our research questions – as will be seen in the various tables.

For each question, up to three reference tables tallying the coding units and some general remarks are provided below. In the numeric tables, the overall tally is given, along with breakdowns by division of the capstone major; school; high, middle and lower GPA groupings; and gender:

• Table Qx‐1: a detailed tally of the distinct coding units with a descriptive text. Reviewing this table will give the full flavor of the various comments, but the numbers for individual units are too small for most statistical comparisons.

• Table Qx‐2: a summary of the counts by key topics subtotaled within the hierarchical structure.

• Table Qx‐3: the summary counts of Table Qx‐2converted to a percentage of the total comments within each column. This facilitates, for instance, a possible observation that males are more likely to make a certain type of comment than females. Excel conditional highlighting has been used to accentuate the variability in the percentages across individual rows for comment items with a count of at least 50, and with the professional and self‐designed majors excluded due to their low numbers in the database. The use of conditional formatting and the 50 count criterion is not intended as a scientific procedure, but simply to visually accentuate differences that might be investigated further using the related numerical response items in the survey.

Part 5, Page: 3

These tables can be found in four Excel spreadsheets:

• student comments ‐ Q1 pos neg aspects yrs1 and 2.xlsx • student comments ‐ Q2 learned about yrs1 and 2.xlsx • student comments ‐ Q3 stu val yrs1 and 2.xlsx • student comments ‐ Q4 stu other yrs1 and 2.xlsx

Response Rates and Analysis Methodology

There are 3,006 capstone records in our survey database, of which 163 are double major capstones for which the student data is replicated for each of the mentors, leaving 2,843 distinct student records. Of these, 1,660 students, 58%, responded to the post‐capstone survey, and of those 1,201 (72%) made a comment on at least one of the four open‐ended questions.

The use of counting methods raises a general issue of interpretation – how to interpret the counts for an individual coding unit, many of which are low, even just 1 or 2. First, it can be seem in Table 1 for each question that the coding units are fine grained. Second, it should be noted that all the questions are very general, they were placed at the end of a long survey, and they were likely to elicit only one or two distinct ideas each. Indeed, two questions suggested precisely this by asking only for the “most” valuable experience or any “particularly positive or negative” aspect. As noted below, the average number of coded units per non‐blank response varied from 1.3 to 2.3.

The hierarchical structure in the tables partially resolves this by grouping related coding units together in broader themes, where the counts become more meaningful. Many individual coding units may have an idea worth considering, however, and even if it only occurs once may still be a notion many other students would agree with. Hence, we encourage readers to review the individual coded units given in each Table Qx‐1.

The breakdown of the 1,202 capstones with a non‐blank response by the student subgroups in the tables is:

School Red 368 31% Tan 309 26% White 141 12% Yellow 383 32%

1201 100% Major natural sciences/math 310 26% social sciences 431 36% humanities 315 26% professional (business, teacher ed) 85 7% self‐designed major 58 5% missing 2 0%

1201 100% GPA Group

Part 5, Page: 4

H=>3.50 503 42% M= 3.00 to 3.49 447 37% L=<3.00 251 21%

1201 100% Gender M 372 31% F 829 69%

1201 100%

Clearly the counts for subgroups are unequally sized, and the comparisons of raw counts will under‐represent school White, professional and self‐designed majors, lower GPA students, and males. For this reason, the raw counts are converted to the percentage of the responses within each student subgroup in Table 3 for each question. It might also be noted that 56 of the 58 self‐designed majors are from school White, while 68 of the 85 professional majors are from Tan, with the remaining 17 from White.

In the notes below, selected excerpts from student comments, with occasional minor editorial correction for typos, are indicated in italics.

The comments below look at each of the four questions in turn, followed by remarks about the comments from students who rated their capstone experience the poorest, and possible implications for the projects research questions.

****************************************

Question Q1: “Please describe any particularly positive or negative aspects of your capstone experience”

Although in 2009/10 this question did not explicitly ask students to identify an aspect as either positive or negative, the nature of the comment was almost always identifiable. In 2010/11 separate boxes were designated for the positive and negative responses, so this was clear. The few ambiguous or neutral comments have been omitted. In Tables Q1‐1 to Q1‐3 the positive and negative comments have been tallied in separate areas.

There were 2,593 coded items tallied among the 1,149 capstones with a comment, an average of 2.3 distinct coded items per capstone. Overall, the numerical balance leans markedly towards the positive side: 62% were positive and 38% negative. Moreover, in reading the remarks one has the sense that the balance ought to be judged even more toward the positive based on the relative weight of the statements. For instance, a frequent combination might cite strong personal or academic gains, but note the stress or amount of the work as a negative along with a disclaimer that it was worth it. This judgment is reinforced by the results from another question (PostStu110): when asked if “Overall, I had good capstone experience”, among these same 1,149 students, 963 agreed or strongly agreed (84%), while only 63 (5%) disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Part 5, Page: 5

POSITIVE ASPECTS

Aspects students most frequently cited as personal or intellectual gains included (from most to least commented):

• Project and time management skill – organization, planning, saw project through to end (164)

• Research skills and/or interest (119) • Self‐understanding of abilities and interests (115) • General intellectual growth (69) • Preparation for graduate or professional school (61) • Critical thinking skills (46) • Self‐confidence (33) • Writing or communication skills (33) • Disciplinary knowledge (32) • Patience, perseverance, overcoming challenges (14)

Aspects of the capstone experience mentioned most frequently as positives included:

• The close working relationship with their mentor, including receiving useful and timely feedback (402)

• The experience itself, or, specifically, the research experience, was generally enjoyable and/or rewarding (171)

• The freedom and independence to work on a project of their own choosing under their own direction (120)

• The availability of support from others (librarians, fellow students, others) (74) • The overall experience, in general (52) • The ability to integrate their ideas, knowledge, or interests (39) • The chance to do fieldwork or to travel (33)

Selected comments:

• Both of my senior capstone projects helped [me] find my true passions in life… • … being able to work on my own independent, self directed project • Working closely with my advisor, who was very supportive without being controlling. • Freedom to learn about a subject I picked • I pushed personal limits and capabilities, it helped me to grow • I found that my capstone experience increased my ability to work independently and

confidently. • I had an amazing learning experience being treated as a peer not a student by my

advisors • … produced an experience that I am able to talk about extensively and passionately. • I was shocked in how much I learned • I was able to experience conducting and controlling a research project • It was independent research, so I had the freedom to formulate my own ideas. I

pushed myself really hard

Part 5, Page: 6

• engaging challenge, completely changed my life, definitely the most important class I've taken in college

• The experience has made me confident in my research skills, presentation skills, ability to take on a large project, and has helped me decide what I ultimately want to do in life.

NEGATIVE ASPECTS

Aspects mentioned most frequently as negatives included:

• Mentors who gave poor or untimely feedback, were unhelpful or unavailable, missed meetings (276)

• The general stress or difficulty of the experience (202) • Difficulties balancing the demands of the capstone with those of other courses or

personal activities (130) • Capstone policies/structure ‐ guidelines that are not clear, capstone class not helpful,

time period too long or too short , too much weight as a requirement (121) • Various support issues with facilities, equipment, workspaces, finding cooperative

human research subjects, etc. (55) • Difficulties with topic selection (no freedom or inadequate guidance) (38) • Their own struggles with time management (29) • Preparation for the capstone was lacking (23) • An outside placement that caused problems (15) • Project goals not reached (14) • Found they didn’t enjoy the research experience (13)

Selected comments:

• It was stressful at times because you have to put so much of yourself into this project • Very stressful. Even if you don't work on it daily, it is always hanging over your head • At times it was stressful, but I had a great advisor who helped me through everything. • … how to balance my capstone with my other coursework. • I'm not very good at managing my time…. • It was very frustrating when information for my topic was not readily accessible, but I

worked through the challenges…. • I sometimes did not fully understand what my mentor was expecting out of me. • Unclear expectations at the beginning • Advisor gave very little feedback • My advisor was not readily accessible

Table Q1‐3 highlights differences in the likelihood of students by major, school, gpa group, and gender of citing a particular aspect.

REMARKS

Mentors: The student/mentor relationship is the dominant theme in the comments, and reflects the 1:1 nature of the capstone experience and the crucial role of the mentor in

Part 5, Page: 7

capstone success. Although it is gratifying to see so many positive comments about mentors, it appears that for about 11% of the capstones, the student is reporting some dissatisfaction with the mentor, much of it about availability, meetings, feedback, or lack of guidance. Could these problems be reduced by better mentor training or through guidelines for mentors regarding expectations? Are they a consequence of faculty workload? In any case, the comments still strongly support the opportunity to work 1:1 with a faculty mentor as a key structural advantage of the capstone experience. Students, of course, are looking for faculty with disciplinary expertise relevant to the student’s project, but much more dominant in the comments are general advising and interpersonal skills ‐ that the mentor offers support and encouragement, shows some interest in the project, is available, and gives timely feedback.

To explore this further using our numerical results from the fixed response section of the survey, we turn to the scales, as described elsewhere, on both the student and mentor surveys that concerned the quality of the student:faculty mentor relationship, and look at how the means varied by departmental responses to how the capstone was structured with regard to the 1:1 mentoring when the mentor has multiple students (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree):

Faculty: Mentor's self‐rating of good relationship with the student Students: Helpful and comfortable relationship with the mentor

N Mean N Mean1 using one‐on‐one mentoring only 219 4.38 211 4.44 2 primarily one‐on‐one with less frequent group meetings 91 4.35 129 4.59 3 primarily group meetings with incidental individual

mentoring 72 4.27 87 4.24

4 primarily group meetings with significant structured individual mentoring

74 4.48 81 4.62

5 varies by faculty member 68 4.38 65 4.52 Total 524 4.37 573 4.48

An ANOVA indicated the differences in the means were statistically significant for the faculty responses, but not for the students. Even though the statistical significance results are mixed, it is interesting that the highest means are for group meetings in combination with significant structured individual mentoring, which suggests that this approach, which may have benefits as an efficiency measure in mentoring multiple students or as a pedagogical technique to encourage student interaction around common issues, is also reasonable in terms of good student:mentor relationships. As a further argument in favor of this technique, the students’ ratings of the capstones contribution to development showed the highest mean for this approach, tied with “primarily on‐on‐one with less frequent group meetings”, although the differences were not statistically significant.

The amount of independence given to or expected of the student is also an issue for the mentor. Many students commented on the value of their freedom to manage their own project, while others wanted more direction and structure, citing things like deadlines, regular

Part 5, Page: 8

meetings, and clear expectations. Mentor training might include consideration of ways to tailor the capstone structures or projects to the needs and capabilities of the student, with the goal of allowing as much independence and self‐ownership of the project as the student can handle without resulting in disaster, keeping in mind that learning to manage a large project and learning about their own abilities are major benefits of the capstone experience.

Growth: Students reported personal and academic growth in areas this study anticipated, as shown in the numerical results. Project and time management skills were the top general areas receiving comment, followed by gaining research skills and interest, and self‐understanding of abilities and interests.

In contrast, the relatively infrequent mention of gaining disciplinary knowledge is worth special note. Although embedded in a discipline it may be a defining characteristic of the capstone experience that the main benefits are the more general growth that students report, with development of disciplinary expertise being secondary. Overall, the comments suggest the capstone experience is a powerful growth experience in ways distinct from those of regular courses.

Topic selection: The comments suggest that, as much as possible, letting students work on a topic of personal interest is desirable as it increases motivation, enjoyment, and “ownership” of the project. Mentors comments suggest that lack of student motivation is a significant problem for about 12% of capstones. Additional investigation should be done to determine the factors that result in poor motivation. Students and mentors might benefit from approaches that improve the fit of the topic to the student’s interests. Numerical results suggest that the origin of the topic, whether it be from the student or the mentor, is less important than the student having significant input in tailoring the topic and in the design of the capstone project. On the negative side, some students objected to topics being restricted to the area of a specific capstone course or seminar.

Structure: Negative comments about the capstone structure focused on unclear guidelines, the length of time (both too long and too short), the weight as a graduation requirement, and the use of capstone classes that students didn’t feel were useful for their particular topic. School Tan, where requiring capstones is relatively new, drew a disproportionate share of these comments.

Stress and Workload: About 8% of student comments reported that the capstone was stressful, difficult or disappointing, and about 5% that it was difficult to balance the capstone with other courses or personal activities. To a certain extent the challenge of the capstone is a desirable design feature that drives growth, so this is an acceptable result. Student comments, however, also indicate specific support issues that might be resolved, such as lack of facilities or equipment, access to library source materials, insufficient financial support, lack of time, and poor mentor availability. In general, the capstone is an intense experience that heightens the need for support services.

Variation by subgroups: There are several notable differences in the responses by student subgroups highlighted in table Q1‐3. The percentages in the column for each student subgroup are based on the total number of coded comments for that subgroup, which avoids the

Part 5, Page: 9

problem of comparing the raw counts among differently‐sized groups. With the limitations noted in the introduction to this report, Excel conditional highlighting has been used to visually express differences in the percentages across each row. Some speculative observations:

Academic division. Natural science majors are more likely to cite improvement in time management skills and research skills than humanities majors. Is this a difference in disciplinary styles? Does managing a scientific experiment, for instance, require more attention to project planning, organization and timelines than literary analysis or a creative art work? Although humanities majors were most likely to cite the experience as rewarding and the preponderance of comments is positive for all academic divisions, the research component of capstones may fit the natural sciences particularly well. 67% of natural science comments were positive versus 58% for social science and humanities. We ask if there is an inherent ‘sequentiality’ to work in the sciences (lab work comes to mind) that is not the same in the humanities. Also, we wonder if attitudinally there is an emphasis on precision in the sciences, which might lead to a stronger propensity to feel that planning is of value.

School. School Tan stands out in having a higher percentage citing gains in preparation for a job or graduate school, possibly because of disproportionate inclusion of pre‐professional majors (business and teacher education). Tan, which is just beginning a capstone program and may have start‐up adjustments to make, had more cited problems with mentor support and unclear guidelines than the other schools.

GPA Group. The comments support the claim that a capstone experience can be valuable to students at all GPA levels. The percentage of positive comments was 60% for both the low and high GPA groups, and 63% for the middle group. The lowest GPA group was highest in the percentage who indicated they gained self‐understanding of their abilities and interests, and the capstone experience was enjoyable or generally positive, although they were lowest for citing gaining job or graduate school preparation as an outcome. Otherwise, the gains and positive aspects of the experience seem to be fairly even across all groups.

Gender. As percentages of areas cited, differences by gender do not seem to be notable.

***********************************

Question Q2: “What did you learn about yourself as a result of your capstone experience?”

This question is about self‐discovery. A capstone experience generally involves extending the student’s proximal zone of development by requiring a more intense, sustained, independent effort. For many, the experience of a large scale research effort requiring production of a thesis or a major creative project is a new and significant experience in “self‐authorship”. This question is directed to what students learned about themselves in this process. In contrast, responses to questions Q1 and Q3 are more relevant to the issue of how students developed during the capstone.

Overall response rate: There were 1,094 non‐blank responses to this question. Of these, 13 were deemed unusable or non‐responsive to the question, leaving a pool of 1,081 usable responses. The coding into topical units resulted in 1,653 topics, an average of 1.5 per capstone.

Part 5, Page: 10

Tables Q2‐1 and Q2‐2: The responses generally showed that students either discovered they had a strength they hadn’t fully realized, notably being able to manage a large project or that they were better writers than they thought, or a limitation or deficiency, such as being unable to manage a large project, or they gained a self‐insight, such as confirming, or not, their interest in their chosen academic discipline or career. Table 1 tallies the coded response units according to these three broad categories. These categories have been broken down further by whether the unit referred to an ability, interest, or personality characteristic. Finally, the codes are grouped into the general topic and sub‐topic areas.

Table Q2‐1 gives the tallies in the full detail of the above categorization, with subtotals at the general topic area indicated in the column for Group 3.

Tally Results:

Students’ comments most frequently related to discovery of strengths (68%), as opposed to limitations (12%), or insights (19%). 2% indicated they learned little of nothing about themselves as a result of their capstone.

Strengths – 68%. The most frequent comments indicated students learned they had strengths, sometimes beyond what they expected in:

• Project management skills, 25% • General academic ability, 16%:

o Communicating in writing or orally, 7% o Critical thinking (analysis, synthesis, argumentation), 5% o General academic ability, 4%

• Personal potential to achieve, 11% • Research skills, 9% • Work ethic, motivation, perseverance, 6%

Selected strength comments:

• I learned that I am able to write critically and strongly. This was a skill set that I never thought I had.

• I learned I'm a good academic writer who can integrate separate ideas and then expand on them.

• I have the ability to write creatively and people enjoy reading what I write. • I learned that I thoroughly enjoy research and that I am capable of producing a

relevant, meaningful thesis. • I am capable of producing work equal with what is being generated at the top of the

field… • I learned that i am very organized and have the drive to complete a task to the best of

my ability. I also learned that If I put my mind to it, I can do anything I want to or need to do.

• I learned a lot about time management and how to handle various projects … How to juggle regular course work while independently handling my senior paper.

Part 5, Page: 11

• I learned how to push myself to understand and interpret ideas and analytical tools. I learned that other scientist respect me for contributing good data to the scientific community. I learned that I can be in a lab all day and still love what I do.

• That I can do it!

Limitations – 12%. Several student comments reported discovering limitations or deficiencies in their abilities or personal characteristics. The most frequent were:

• Project management skills, 6%

• Communicating in writing or orally, 2%

• Limited work ethic, 1%

Sample responses:

• I am terrible at holding myself to deadlines. • I am determined, but I also like to take on more than I am able at times. It is

important to focus on what I am able to complete, not what I want to complete. • I need to really think through things before I start something. I ran into a few

problems that were results of not considering all aspects of a particular issue. However, I am very grateful for these problems because I learn best from my mistakes.

• I learned about flaws in my writing style and how to improve them. • I still have a lot more work to do on my writing to make it clear and succinct. • I get very distracted easily, however, when I am really interested in a topic I become

more engaged…

Insights – 19%. Insights gained related to several elements of personal style, personality, or interests, but the predominant insights related to interests and career clarification:

• Clarified career interest, 8% • Clarified general academic or discipline specific interest, 4% • Learned enjoyed doing research, 2%

Sample responses:

• That I am a very independent worker, that I am ready to go on to get a PhD because of that…

• That I want a career in research • I learned that teaching is not very easy but it is something that I want to do. • I learned what I was passionate about and what hard work and determination can result

in as well as gaining a better understanding of my potential. • I believe the capstone experience has helped me decide what I want to do with my life.

Also, it has helped me discover my strengths and weaknesses. • I learned what I am really interested in doing as a career. • I learned that the material I was studying was the material I want to study in graduate

school and beyond. • I do not enjoy doing research

Part 5, Page: 12

COMMENTARY:

General Results

As with the other questions, the large scale of the capstone project is a driving force behind many of remarks, particularly the discovery of project management abilities or inabilities, and related factors such as motivation, persistence, and work ethic. The scale of the project in conjunction with the expectations of independent work and doing original research or inquiry are also behind gains in discovery of capabilities in writing and critical thinking.

Since the capstone is most frequently a research project, it is worth noting that 9% of the remarks indicated discovery of an ability for doing research, and 2% that indicated the student learned they enjoyed research.

Also of note, since it relates to one of our research hypotheses, is that 12% of the remarks indicated gaining a clearer understanding of the student’s career or academic disciplinary interest.

Overall, the capstone experience seems to contribute significantly to students’ self‐assessments of their abilities and interests in ways that would not be expected from a typical course.

A hypothesis of this project was that the capstone experience is “transformational” in the sense of the development of “self‐authorship”, life‐long learning interests, and, in particular, an interest in research or creative work. For a small but significant percentage of the students, the data suggests the impact of the capstone is indeed life changing in altering their career or graduate school plans or making other personal commitments. For many more students the capstone allowed them to discover a new interest or ability, including research or other academic interests, or to make gains in self‐understanding, self‐confidence, or a sense of increased potential. The capstone gave them the first opportunity to do original research, work independently, manage a large project, or write a major thesis espousing their own position, and they found they were capable of meeting the challenge. Finally, for some students the capstone was more “confirmational” in that it confirmed their interest in going to graduate school or their interest in their academic major, rather than radically changing it. It is probably too much to expect to see many radical changes from one experience over a brief time period, but the comments strongly suggest that, at the least, the capstone experience has a powerful “precursor effect” in the sense of setting the student on a path that leads to longer term benefits.

"With realization of one's own potential and self‐confidence in one's ability, one can build a better world." ‐ Dalai Lama

Subgroup Results

Table Q2‐3 gives the breakdowns by student groups as percentages of responses in each column.

Part 5, Page: 13

Men and women were about equally likely to cite a strength, as were students from all three GPA groups. In contrast, men and lower GPA students were more likely to cite a limitation, notably in project management skills.

Discovering a capability for doing research was most likely to be cited by natural science majors (13%), followed by social science majors (10%), and humanities majors (4%).

Question Q3: “What aspects of your capstone experience do you think will be of most value to you after you graduate?”

There were 1,124 non‐blank responses to this question, 1,100 noted something of value and 24 indicated nothing of value was gained. The responses were categorized into 1,912 coded units for an average of 1.7 units per response. Extracts from selected comments are indicated in italics.

DEVELOPMENT OF SKILLS OR KNOWLEDGE

Development of Project management skills (334 comments, 17%)

This category received by far the most number of comments. Several subareas received a significant number of comments: organization, time management, ability to work independently, seeing a significant project through to its completion, working under pressure, troubleshooting. These characteristics are prominent in (and in scale they are unique to) the capstone experience and are apparently new to most students. Students from all academic divisions except professional, which had a lower percentage, were about as likely to cite project management. It was about as likely to be cited by males as females, and slightly more likely to be cited by the lower GPA group. It was somewhat more likely to be cited by students from Red, where the capstone is always a full year project, than from students from White or Yellow, and least likely to be cited by students from Tan, where the capstone often extends over a single ten week term, the smallest time frame for the four schools.

• My experience in organizing my research and effectively integrating it into my work will probably be of most value to me.

• Going through the process of organizing my own research has given me the confidence to approach complicated tasks.

• By performing the research on my own will be able to show graduate schools and businesses that I am reliable and have a strong work ethic.

• Having learned to work independently, but also cooperatively with another institution, as well as how to use feedback constructively.

• I will value my abilities to work independently as well as cooperatively. I have taken life lessons of success and failure with me ‐ very important for the so called "real‐world."

• The ability to form an idea and see it through. Also, my ability to work independently but still allow myself to accept suggestions and feedback from others.

Part 5, Page: 14

• The ability to make decisions on my own based on previous knowledge in my field, and the ability to work through difficult problems which arise unexpectedly.

• Being able to complete a project given to me that I may be unclear about at first and working through it on my own to figure it out and complete it.

• I know how to deal and cope with setbacks in the research process. • The most beneficial part of my capstone experience was learning how to manage such a

large project mostly on my own. I now have a better understanding of how to adequately research a large subject.

• The ability to work on one idea, think about, and expand over a certain period of time is of value to me. It will help while I am on my own without the safety net of college.

• …managing the process of completing a long, difficult, and focused project. • The entire process of developing a research idea and executing it, and then writing about

the findings.

Development of writing and oral communication skills (234 comments, 12%)

Of the comments in this category, 152 were about writing skills and 82 dealt with oral or general communications, many about presentation skills. Of the comments about writing, 43 specifically mention the length of the written work as contributing to the student’s development, clearly a characteristic prominent in capstones.

Citing this as a benefit was fairly even across all student subgroups.

• My communication skills‐‐I've not only become a better writer, but a better public speaker as well. I learned to engage in a meaningful conversation with others of my discipline.

• Being able to give multiple presentations increased my confidence in public speaking. • I think being able effectively to present a topic that an audience has no background in will

help me when I need to work as part of a team. • I think the oral presentation really prepared in terms of communication skills, because it's

one thing to write a paper, but it's another thing to be able to explain and discuss its strengths and weaknesses in front of colleagues.

• The skills I learned doing an oral presentation (both to my peers and to my adviser and second reader) as well as the experience of writing a thesis

• Writing a long, thorough scientific paper • The ability to write professionally • The knowledge that I can produce a large written body of work under stressful conditions. • The ability to write, research, and think critically. Also, being able to speak in public is of

the utmost importance. • I think the ability to critically examine a concept, research using methods that you might

not have used before, and to manage such a large body of information to create a cohesive work have made a profound impact on the way I think about academics.

Preparation for graduate schools and/or career skills (224 comments, 12%)

About 12% of seniors explicitly mentioned that their work on their capstone contributed to their professional development in some way. Preparation for graduate school (77 comments) or a job (48 comments) was cited by some. Another 28 comments specifically mentioned the

Part 5, Page: 15

creation of a product for a professional portfolio useful in a job search, 4 noted their capstone work would be published or was publishable, 8 cited professional contacts as a benefit, and 8 cited the development of interview skills.

By student subgroup, the highest GPA group students were more likely to cite this benefit (13%) than the lowest (9%).

• It will serve as a manuscript to send out for possible publication, and also as a meaningful, representative writing sample in my portfolio for graduate admission

• It sounds impressive to graduate schools and looks good on a resume. • I left with a complete portfolio of finished poems, ready to be submitted for publication. • I think having experience writing a qualitative thesis will be very helpful to me in my

master's program next fall. • The completed thesis, as well as the time management skills gained from it, will be most

helpful in applying for graduate school and future jobs. • The contacts I've made and networks I've been introduced into. • The relationships I made with my advisors will help when they write letters of

recommendations.

Development of research skills (219 comments, 12%)

The comments in this category focused on development of skills (programming, data gathering, lab techniques, and so on). Comments from seniors in the natural and social sciences were most likely (15%), with relatively fewer comments from students in the humanities (9%).

There are two related categories: “Valued the research experience” with 6% of comments, and “Increase in valuing work‐related attributes of research/projects” with 4% of comments.

Students of all GPA ranges were about equally likely to cite research skills as a benefit.

• Research skills, presenting skills, writing skills, masters‐level thesis experience. • Having research experience, especially having lab experience. • Research skills, having a major piece of work in my major field of study, and having the

experience to do a research project. • The experience I gained from working in a research lab. Research never goes as smoothly

or quite how one wants it.

Understanding knowledge in a broader context & gaining disciplinary knowledge (113 comments, 6%)

Gaining disciplinary knowledge does not appear to have the same importance as skill‐based gains resulting from the capstone. Similarly, understanding knowledge in a broader context is quite weak as a reported capstone post‐graduate impact.

This is consistent with other evidence we have, but is still disappointing. We believe the capstone is a culminating experience that is intended to bring together valued liberal arts outcomes, but the biggest gains are associated with the skills needed to successfully complete a large project. We have hypothesized that in identifying a fairly narrow question to take on,

Part 5, Page: 16

students are focused on the academic background needed for that investigation and haven't the time to sit back and see their work in a larger context.

• Learning how to learn… • Work ethic and I have learned how to learn... • The fact that I performed and excelled in my field of study, because research is what I

want to do for the rest of my life. • My knowledge that I gained about my topic • I will value the understanding I gained of current research and work in my field. I will

value the confidence I gained from being able to complete my project in the face of considerable adversity.

Gaining self‐understanding & Increase in self‐confidence (162 comments total, 9%)

These two related categories speak to the relationship between gaining a better understanding of one’s abilities and the consequent gain in confidence to tackle significant and challenging projects.

Students from Tan, which requires a reflective statement as part of its capstone, were only somewhat more likely, 4.9%, to cite self‐understanding as a valuable outcome than the average of the other three schools, 3.4%.

• The overall sense of accomplishment, new feelings of confidence. • The project itself is helping me get into graduate school. I feel confident in the work I am

going to do in the future. I know I will be able to handle graduate work. • More than anything, it has boosted my confidence. I have confidence in my abilities to

accomplish tasks that require a large undertaking, and I have confidence in my solid education.

• My overall confidence in my work. I felt as though there was so much leading up to the final piece, and when it was finally completed and I knew I had passed, it was proof that I could achieve what at times, seems almost unachievable.

Development of collaboration skills (37 comments, 2%)

There were only 37 comments on collaboration, presumably because most capstones are one‐on‐one with an advisor, which students don't see as being collaborative.

OTHER VALUEABLE ASPECTS OF THE EXPERIENCE

Many comments reported some aspect of the capstone experience would be valuable. We have treated this as distinct from reporting the development of a skill or knowledge, as discussed above, because no explicit claim was made that a skill was actually developed. These areas include valuing the:

• research experience (114 comments, 6%) • the experience of completing a large scale or difficult project (I can do it!) (113

comments, 6%) • writing or oral communication experience (17 comments, 1%)

Part 5, Page: 17

• relationship with the mentor (19 comments, 1%)

***************************************

Question Q4: “Please tell us about any other aspects of your capstone experience that might be helpful to our study of the benefits of capstones.”

Perhaps for emphasis, many of the student responses to Question 4 repeat topics that were raised in response to the earlier questions about positive and negative aspects of their experience or benefits. New types of comments were predominant in three areas:

• Capstone administration with suggestions for improvement (e.g., program structure) • Observations about the capstone program/process • Advice to other students

A total of 529 responses were made, many extensive and thoughtful. Some 710 topics are tabulated in the tables, an average of 1.3 topics per comment.

General comments

Echoing prior questions, over a third of the comments described either positive or negative aspects of their capstone experiences and 9% of the responses noted some gain in a skill, knowledge, or dispositional trait. However, over half of the responses constituted specific observations regarding particular aspects of the capstone program, including how the program was administered, how the program could be better structured, and what future students should do in order to have a successful capstone experience.

Table Q4‐1

Table Q4‐1 shows the breakdown of topics into the hierarchy of Groups 1 to 3. The reader is encouraged to read through the list of topic descriptions, along with the counts, to see the range of topics.

Advice to other students.

Some students wanted to pass on their advice for what was important for others to have a successful capstone. Most frequent topics:

• Choose your mentor carefully and work with your mentor, 21. • Manage your time well, start early, 24. • Choose a topic carefully – something you are interested in, you can manage, 18.

Selected comment excerpts:

• Make sure you pick a topic that you can stay interested in for the entire time. • By picking a passionate topic you truly enjoy doing the work and are excited about the

finished product. • My mentor was very good in giving me enough time to find a topic that I was really

passionate about, which made the rest of my experience enjoyable and interesting to me.

Part 5, Page: 18

• The task is quite overwhelming at first but it’s important to break it down and have feedback from your mentor.

• An engaged and involved advisor is very necessary to keep your morale and work high. • Meet with your advisor at least once a week in person. Ideas and critiques can be

misconstrued through emails and track changes. It's best to sit down with the thesis in front of you and TALK IT OUT TOGETHER!!

• Always give yourself more time for the writing process than you think you'll need. • The single most helpful thing that I can think of is to work on it regularly. This isn't a

homework assignment‐‐ you can't wait until the last minute to finish it. Actually stick to the schedule you make, if you make one. Consistency is key.

Capstone administration.

Most frequent topics:

• A capstone class was not useful, should focus more on helping individual students, 17. • Preparation for the capstone should be improved, 17. • Capstone should cover a longer time frame or does not give enough time; could not be

adequately completed within the allotted time, 17. • More training is needed for mentors. Mentors should be qualified, interested in

student’s topic. Mentors should have adequate time to work with students, 17. • Guidelines/expectations/requirements for the capstone should be clearer, 11.

Again we see an emphasis on the important role of the mentor and selecting a topic that is doable in the time allotted given the student’s abilities and the resources available.


• I believe senior seminars should be focused on the students, on communication between them and their original thoughts.

• The class should be more geared towards helping us with our personal topics. • I wish I had had to do more long research papers to help me become more prepared for

this project. • Students should be encouraged to begin thinking about a topic their freshman year, and

taught how to do that kind of independent research from the start, not in their junior or senior year.

• I think it would be helpful to have a seminar for professors to go through before they are allowed to mentor so that they understand what they are undertaking and how serious the project is. Also, how to work with students and how to construct a time line and stick to it...how to organize this project.

• Make sure new profs do not have to be an IS adviser in their first year. Have them be a part of another professor’s advising team.

• Make sure all new faculty have proper training…

Capstone experiences – positive and negative aspects.

Part 5, Page: 19

For the most part, the remarks made in this category also appeared in the main themes arising from the responses to question Q1. That they are repeated here may mean they were of particular importance to the student.

Most frequent topics:

• Positive – the experience overall was generally positive, enjoyable, worthwhile, valuable, or the best experience of college, 84.

• Positive – good, helpful relationship with the mentor, 36. • Positive – the freedom to direct their own project, 12. • Negative – stress, anxiety, difficulty (but almost always also accompanied by a remark

that it was also rewarding), 21. • Negative – poor, unhelpful relationship with the mentor, 12.


• I.S. is a great opportunity to create a genuine and exciting experience for your self • I really enjoyed my project and am grateful for the relationship that I developed with my

adviser and the skills that I gained in the process. • Capstones are the best! • I think that the capstone project is a wonderful way to prepare students for graduate

school and it was one of the best experiences of my college career. • This was the most rewarding aspect of my college academic experience. • My advisor was wonderful. He had a true enjoyment of the subject material, and was

genuinely interested in the project. • The ability to have a professor as a mentor is greatly important. Here you are able to

discuss not only ones project, but future goals in life. • It was one of the hardest things I have ever done, but one of the most rewarding. • It is difficult when an advisor is on sabbatical for part of the capstone.

Miscellaneous Observations.

These are general comments about the capstone experience. Many would have been placed in the “advice to students” category if they had been more explicitly a recommendation to others. Several are, as requested in the question, observations students think should be noted for a study of capstone impacts.

The majority of responses fell into two sub‐categories: the importance of project management (24 counts), and the general value of the capstone program as better than a classroom experience or as a distinguishing feature for the college (22 counts). Other themes include the value of working independently, of gaining knowledge about oneself, and of the post‐graduate preparation.

Selected comments:

• The process was stressful at times, but I learned so much, including content, methods, statistics, etc. that I really think it is more than just a worthwhile exercise. I feel prepared

Part 5, Page: 20

for grad school, and I think that this experience has given me a leg‐up over students graduating from schools that do not have a capstone project.

• It is important that … the mentor help students effectively narrow their research so as not to be overwhelming or impossible.

• At the end we had to write a reflective paper that discussed what we learned about our topic, ourselves and the greater community while completing the project. I think this is an important aspect of undergraduate research that should be addressed by other colleges and universities as well. It's important to really think about how you've grown as a person and why the research you completed is important.

• It helped me felt like I earned my degree. There was an actual peak or climax to my college experience…

• Advisors are essential to the IS experience, and it is important that they are not over‐burdened.

• I think every major should have to give an oral presentation beyond their oral examination if it is conducive to their field as people should be able to present their research to others.

• I believe we should not fear to employ means‐end thinking, and discuss with students how this project may filter into larger research at different universities or centers around the globe. We ought to get involved with other places and network throughout the process. "Partner institutions"

• My professors and advisor seemed to think I knew how the entire process worked‐‐I had no such knowledge

• More deadlines would be helpful along the way. It was overwhelming to just have one large goal at the end of each term.

• The second semester should be the time for job applications, grad school applications and preparation for the real world. The project was time consuming and stressful and I feel like it did hurt my job searching process.

• Working in "comp groups" with other students should be something that all students/majors should have to the opportunity to do. My discipline did not offer this and from hearing other students' experiences they sounded very helpful for feedback, editing, and time management.

• I think there should be a more even spectrum between majors of what people have to do for their capstone.

• For whatever reason, college students have built up the thesis project into this huge, frightening, and stressful task. … Granted, writing a thesis can be stressful and often frustrating, and until you have experienced the process yourself, you cannot fully understand the mental and emotional stressors. However, it's really not as bad as everyone makes it out to be. It's very doable, provided that you manage your time wisely, and drink a lot of coffee!

***********************************

Special Considerations ‐ Remarks by those with the poorest capstone experience

Part 5, Page: 21

One of the fixed‐response questions on the survey asked the student whether they agreed that “Overall, I had a good capstone experience.” The vast majority (85%) of students rated their experience a 4 or 5, “agree” or “strongly agree”, with only 23 students rating the experience a 1 = “strongly disagree”. Thus, the overall results of this analysis represent students who felt they had a good experience. For contrast, in this section we ask what distinguishes the sorts of comments made by the 23 students who had a particularly poor capstone experience.

This group was broadly diverse. 15 were female, 8 male, and by division their majors were: 3 ‐ NS, 7 ‐ SS, 10 ‐ Hum, 2‐business, and 1 ‐ self‐designed. The group, on average, received lower grades on their capstone than they did in regular courses. Their average college GPA was 3.23 (B+) and the average capstone grade was 2.41 (C+). In contrast, the overall average GPA for capstones closely matched the average capstone grade. So, one characteristic of this group is a lower than expected capstone grade, and it seems that something in the capstone structure versus a regular course caused these students difficulty. A review of the topics in the comments from these students suggests these areas may involve the student:mentor relationship: the mentor not giving the expected feedback or guidance, students assigned to a topic or capstone type not of personal interest, or a lack of time which was generally blamed on late mentor feedback or a classroom or seminar structure that pushed work to the very end.

Over half of these 23 students commented negatively on their adviser, making it the most frequently mentioned topic:

• I didn't have much direction, I felt I was often pushed aside to take care of others first, and I don't think my instructor realized how important and serious this project was in conjunction with my other classes.

• I rarely met with my advisor and he was not helpful. • My relationship with my advisor was HORRIBLE. I got no feedback, he was not at all

interested in my topic. • My adviser was not interested in my project and did not give helpful feedback. • My advisor couldn't have been any less helpful. • Was not guided well by mentor • …my comp adviser and comp seminar were fairly useless… • My Advisor was a very condescending, unprofessional, unencouraging, rude, and

belittling. He made me feel stupid and worthless • I felt as though my advisor didn't care about my final product and that the whole process

was horribly orchestrated. • my [internship] boss left to work [elsewhere] so my project more or less became unguided

and in the end a useless endeavor. • Despite meeting with my professor prior to writing every portion of my comp, a lack of

communication that my professor had with me forced me to re‐write over a third of my thesis in less than a day before it was due.

• My advisor didn't seem to know what she was doing with the class; she was unclear about expectations.

• Advisers in a way took over your project and changed it into something that was no longer yours

Part 5, Page: 22

Another area negatively cited was a lack of control of the topic:

• Taking the senior seminar class left me unable to do a paper on my chosen topic, but instead had to fit it into an idea for the class as a whole.

• I was not chosen to do a creative comp, which is a crushing experience. Therefore, I did a literature comp that did not interest me nearly as much as a creative one would have.

• Advisers in a way took over your project and changed it into something that was no longer yours.

Another student complained that they did not like the works of Jane Austin or Charlotte Bronte, apparently the topic of a capstone seminar, and would like to see more options for topics. Two comments were from humanities students who wanted to write a creative piece, but felt forced into writing a literature review.

A third area was lack of time due to structural or adviser problems:

• I had to work to finish a majority of my project during finals week thus not allowing for proper time to study for my other finals, and the project spilled over into my spring break/my internship.

• I wrote my capstone 10 pages in one day and then another 10 pages in one day. There wasn't a support system of accountability to do the project a little at a time. We never knew when we were going to get the drafts back.

• Taking the senior seminar class … with only a month to write a paper. • The draconian schedule we were expected to adhere to for the production of our paper • The due date was never properly given to me‐‐calculated, not just "such and such Friday

of this number week of full classes" until two weeks prior to its due date. I was not able to effectively plan without this in mind.

• … a lack of communication that my professor … forced me to re‐write over a third of my thesis in less than a day before it was due.

One student simply found it extremely stressful:

• It was the most stressful three months of my life. I had a panic attack almost every day and it just got worst as the due date grew closer.

Suggestions from these students for improving the capstone included mentor training or banning some faculty from mentoring, more student choice in topics or capstone type, or ending the program entirely.

For some of these capstones, the mentor also made comments about the student and capstone, and these generally reflect that the capstone did not go well, and tended to report that the student didn’t take feedback well, didn’t consult with the adviser enough, wasn’t motivated or procrastinated.

It is difficult to draw firm conclusions from these remarks, particularly since there is a bit of finger pointing between the student and mentor. But it might be observed that, while these capstones may be the extreme cases, they confirm the importance of the student‐mentor relationship, constructive and timely mentor feedback, and having a topic of interest to the student. Perhaps some of the problems reported might have been avoided if the student and

Part 5, Page: 23

mentor were more explicit about mutual expectations, or if mentors had more training in how to deal with students who aren’t making progress or regular contact. In some cases, again because it seems to be a more general concern, mentors may be contributing to failed capstones by not giving timely feedback, or by not providing appropriate monitoring for students not prepared to work so independently.

****************************

Concluding Remarks – Implications for our Research Questions

Below we look at the research questions for this project and discuss implications from the student comments analysis.


The question of long term sustained benefits are discussed in analysis of the alumni survey, although the comments from seniors indicated that trajectories students make take in regard to lifelong learning are strongly affected by their capstone experiences. Key attributes of the capstone that affect life‐long learning are the development of project management skills, including time management, planning, organizing, and persevering, and an empowering sense of academic self‐confidence and achievement. Many report developing a better understanding of their academic interests, including finding an interest in research. Many report the development of skills in writing and oral communication, critical thinking, and research. Career clarification was noted in about 8% of comments about benefits. Although it does not appear from our numerical results that the decision to pursue advanced degrees is significantly altered by the capstone, and largely precedes the capstone, many report they feel better prepared for graduate school both in skills and in a sense of confidence.

Although several students noted gaining knowledge of their project as a benefit, it was the general development items noted above that students predominantly cited, not gaining disciplinary knowledge.


We have noted the main benefits students cite. What are the key attributes of a well‐designed capstone experience that drive these benefits and that are more prominent in, if not unique to, capstones?

• A sustained, longer term, project with a significant intellectual challenge. • A research, inquiry, or creative product that integrates disciplinary expertise with oral

and written communication skills and critical thinking skills. • A topic or project that is of personal interest to the student, either selected by the

student or negotiated with student input, that the student takes ownership of. • An expectation of considerable independence on the part of the student. • A 1:1 relationship with a mentor who encourages the student, is responsive to students’

need for feedback, and models scholarly skills and behavior.

Part 5, Page: 24

• Oral presentation of the capstone product (if of the appropriate type) through a defense, public presentation, or poster session.


The specifics of how the four schools’ programs differ structurally is covered in other materials, but of note here is that despite many differences in the formulation of our capstone programs, the same themes, both positive and negative, emerged in the student comments. It appears the main benefits can be achieved through a wide variety of capstone structures, although the benefits will vary in extent. For instance, project management benefits appear to be most cited by students from Red, which has the largest universal credit requirement, 8 credits spanning the entire senior year.


The main resource supporting capstone programs is, of course, faculty time and effort. The vast majority of student comments are complimentary about faculty mentoring, but there are enough negative comments to suggest benefits might be achieved from a more clarity about mentor expectations or through mentor training.

Support issues in other areas were noted relatively infrequently, in about 2% of the comments about positive or negative aspects of the capstone.

Clearly, library resources might be expected to be challenged by capstone programs, and a small number of student comments related to not being able to obtain source materials, or limited library hours. A few others expressed appreciation for assistance from the library staff.

Notable was the absence of student comments related to support from writing support services like reading/writing centers, although faculty comments suggested that writing was a problem for some students. Faculty reported in their comments that students seem to be reluctant to use reading/writing centers, even though they should, because they seem them as geared toward first‐year students.

A few comments alluded to financial support, particularly the denial of a grant application.

The most oft cited opportunity cost issue for students was the ability to balance the capstone with the demands of other courses or personal activities, mentioned as more or less of a problem in about 11% of the comments about positive/negative aspects of the capstone. Comments were not generally specific as to an activity that was sacrificed, but notable were several comments that the capstone timing interfered with the student’s ability to complete graduate school applications and interviews.

An obvious tradeoff of capstones is with the opportunity to take equivalent credits in other courses, particularly in the major. What the student comments suggest is that the capstone experience contributes, as has been noted above, types of developmental benefits that are different from most standard courses. This still leaves room for debate about the size that the capstone experience needs to be, in terms of credit hours, to achieve the most benefit with the least disruption of other goals of the curriculum or co‐curriculum.

Part 5, Page: 25


Student perceptions have been discussed above. The perceptions of faculty and administrative support staff are discussed in the separate focus group report.


The analysis of comments did not show significant differences in experiences by gender. All GPA groups were about equally likely to report benefits, although the lower GPA students were more likely to report they discovered a limitation in their ability to perform. The traditional research model may fit natural science majors more naturally, and they seemed to be most in tune with the time management and planning requirements of a capstone experience.

Referring to the analysis of the comments from students who rated their capstone experience as poor, it appears that, while most students report a positive experience, the 23 students who reported the poorest experience (1 on a 5 point scale), had a particularly bad relationship with their mentor, didn’t like their topic choice, or felt they lacked the time to properly complete their project, often citing some problem with the way the capstone was organized.

This reinforces comments that occurred more generally that good practices include providing reasonable flexibility in letting the student choose both the mentor and topic.

Based on the comments, the student:mentor relationship is key to a positive capstone experience. Good practices include defining the expectations for mentors and providing training, such as through experience as secondary readers. Numerical results suggest that strictly 1:1 mentoring may not be the only viable model, and that best practices may include significant 1:1 mentoring in conjunction with periodic group meetings of a mentor’s students. Indeed, in addition to potentially lessening the mentoring workload, several comments referred to the value of such group meetings in providing support and encouragement from other students. As suggested by student comments, mentor training materials or topics might include:

• a review of institutional policies and guidelines for capstones • explicit discussion of the institutionally established goals of the capstone experience for

students • suggestions or criteria for designing a capstone project that will meet the intended goals

for student development • working with the student to scale the project for the time available and the student’s

capabilities • institutional expectations for capstone mentors, and what students say about the

mentoring relationship • scaffolding for independence: providing students with appropriate freedom and

challenge, while providing enough structure to avoid floundering

Part 5, Page: 26

• dealing with unmotivated, unresponsive, or disorganized students (the most common mentor complaint)

• dealing with multiple advisees: the options, pros, and cons of structures like classes, seminars and group meetings

A few comments referred to financial support for an individual project, and the absence of more comments may be an indication that the grant programs in place at the colleges to support capstones are effective and model good practices.

Several comments indicate that double majors experience the capstone differently, in part because policies often require an integrated capstone or multiple capstones, which appears to be a more difficult requirement, and working with multiple mentors can also be a problem. No school seems to have an ideal solution for this problem.

***************************************

Acknowledgments

The careful and time consuming coding of the responses for 2009/10 was largely done by Dr. Timothy Arbisi‐Kelm of Augustana’s Communications Sciences and Disorders department, D also drafted much of the commentary for Q4. Simon Gray and I would like to thank him for his good work and also Dr. Ellen Hay, Augustana’s acting dean, for providing Dr. Arbisi‐Kelm’s assistance to the project through a released time assignment. Thanks also to Simon Gray for collaborating in drafting the commentary above.

Tim Schermer

11/2011

******************

Further issues:

The final report should compare what we learned here about what current seniors think will be beneficial about their capstone after they graduate with what we learned from the alumni survey and what our focus group data indicates about what students and faculty think the capstone should achieve for students.

Part 5, Page: 27

blank page

Part 5, Page: 28

PART 5 TABLES: SENIOR COMMENT TABLES

Part 5, Page: 29

Table Q1‐1: Detailed Tally by Topic of student responses to: COMBINED DATA FOR 2009 and 2010 H=>3.50Please describe any particularly positive or negative aspects of your capstone experience. M= 3.00 to 3.49Positive and negative comments are tallied in separate sections L=<3.00Percents are column percents for all comments combined (positive and negative). BY MAJOR DIVISION BY SCHOOL BY GPA GROUP GENDERLine Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 ID Description Cnt % NS SS Hum Prof Self Red Tan Wht Yellow L M H M F

POSTIVE1 1 skill gain comm general 29 developed communication skills - general 5 0.2% 4 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 1 4 0 4 12 1 skill gain comm writing 34 improved writing due to multiple drafts 2 0.1% 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 23 1 skill gain comm writing 30 improved writing - general 24 0.9% 6 12 5 0 1 13 1 1 9 6 7 11 10 144 1 skill gain comm writing 350 improved writing - learned to write lab papers 2 0.1% 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 15 comm Total Improved writing or communication skills 33 1.3% 11 15 5 0 2 15 2 1 15 8 13 12 15 186 1 skill gain crit thinking general 75 CT - general 8 0.3% 2 2 2 0 2 3 0 0 5 2 1 5 2 67 1 skill gain crit thinking analysis 76 CT - analysis skills 7 0.3% 1 4 1 0 1 1 2 0 4 2 2 3 3 48 1 skill gain crit thinking analysis 373 CT - analyze from different perspectives 3 0.1% 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 29 1 skill gain crit thinking analysis 92 CT - learned to refine / develop /clarify ideas 3 0.1% 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 2 3 0

10 1 skill gain crit thinking argument 90 CT - developed an original argument / project 3 0.1% 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 311 1 skill gain crit thinking integrate 84 CT - integrate theory and practice 4 0.2% 0 3 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 412 1 skill gain crit thinking integrate 83 CT - integrating knowledge from other disciplines; 10 0.4% 3 2 4 1 0 1 6 3 0 0 2 8 1 913 1 skill gain crit thinking integrate 86 CT - synthesis 8 0.3% 1 1 3 0 3 0 2 1 5 0 3 5 3 514 crit thinking Total Improved critical thinking skills 46 1.8% 8 15 15 2 6 11 13 5 17 7 11 28 13 3315 1 skill gain projmgt general 56 project management - project went smoothly 1 0.0% 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0

16 1 skill gain projmgt organiz 369 project management - learned to break project down into manageable pieces 5 0.2% 1 2 2 0 0 3 1 0 1 1 2 2 2 3

17 1 skill gain projmgt organiz 73 project management -learned to manage large project 17 0.7% 4 8 5 0 0 5 5 1 6 2 11 4 4 1318 1 skill gain projmgt own 57 project management - learned to work independently 56 2.2% 23 21 4 1 7 15 10 5 26 9 23 24 19 3719 1 skill gain projmgt timeman 61 time management - meeting deadlines 2 0.1% 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 220 1 skill gain projmgt timeman 60 time management skills- developed 33 1.3% 9 15 8 1 0 11 7 5 10 9 14 10 6 27

21 1 skill gain projmgt troublsh 348 project management - troubleshooting - approach problem in different ways 9 0.3% 6 1 1 0 1 3 2 0 4 2 7 0 1 8

22 projmgt Total Improved project management skills; learned to work independently 123 4.7% 43 49 20 2 9 37 25 12 49 25 58 40 33 90

23 1 skill gain research general 1 research skills - development 30 1.2% 12 14 2 0 2 11 1 1 17 5 14 11 13 1724 1 skill gain research analysis 343 research - analysis - general 4 0.2% 1 3 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 3 1 325 1 skill gain research analysis 25 research - interpreting findings 3 0.1% 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 326 1 skill gain research cond 2 research - conducting 10 0.4% 5 5 0 0 0 2 2 1 5 5 1 4 1 927 1 skill gain research cond 3 research - conducting - lab skills 5 0.2% 4 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 4 1 2 328 1 skill gain research cond 23 research - field work specific to discipline 4 0.2% 1 1 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 1 1 329 1 skill gain research litreview 20 literature review - evaluating materials 8 0.3% 0 3 3 0 2 2 1 1 4 1 3 4 2 630 1 skill gain research litreview 345 literature review - integrating sources 2 0.1% 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 131 1 skill gain research presenting 24 research - presenting findings 3 0.1% 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 3 1 232 1 skill gain research quant 11 quantitative skills - statistics improved 3 0.1% 0 3 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 233 1 skill gain research tech 106 technical skills - general 7 0.3% 3 3 1 0 0 2 3 0 2 3 2 2 4 334 1 skill gain research tech 109 technical skills - real-world application 10 0.4% 2 3 1 4 0 3 5 0 2 0 5 5 1 9

35 1 skill gain research tech 107 technical skills - specific to discipline 4 0.2% 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 4 0 1 3

36 2 knowledge gain research research 126 understanding - how research in the field applies to specific research questions 1 0.0% 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1

37 2 knowledge gain research research 127 understanding - research process 7 0.3% 4 2 1 0 0 1 4 0 2 0 4 3 1 638 2 knowledge gain research value 130 learned importance of - research (general) 3 0.1% 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 1 0 339 research Total Gained research skills 104 4.0% 40 43 11 6 4 31 26 6 41 16 48 40 30 7440 2 knowledge gain disc general 118 disciplinary knowledge - general 12 0.5% 2 6 3 1 0 7 4 0 1 5 7 0 5 741 2 knowledge gain disc ethics 122 disciplinary knowledge, ethics 2 0.1% 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 142 2 knowledge gain disc overall 497 experience - knowledge - disc 1 0.0% 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 143 2 knowledge gain disc overall 500 experience - learning - other studies 4 0.2% 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 4 0 444 2 knowledge gain disc project 123 disciplinary knowledge - project area 10 0.4% 3 4 1 1 1 3 4 0 3 1 5 4 2 845 2 knowledge gain disc theory 120 disciplinary knowledge - ways of practice 2 0.1% 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 146 2 knowledge gain disc theory 121 disciplinary knowledge - ways of thinking 1 0.0% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 047 disc Total Gained disciplinary knowledge 32 1.2% 7 12 7 3 3 13 9 2 8 7 13 12 10 2248 2 knowledge gain overall overall 190 development - intellectual growth 11 0.4% 1 2 6 2 0 4 4 0 3 3 2 6 4 7

Tables: 1 2/22/2012

Part 5, Page: 30

Line Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 ID Description Cnt % NS SS Hum Prof Self Red Tan Wht Yellow L M H M F49 2 knowledge gain overall overall 334 development - learned lot, grew 33 1.3% 13 4 10 2 4 5 8 3 17 5 13 15 7 2650 2 knowledge gain overall overall 496 experience - gained great deal of knowledge 5 0.2% 1 1 3 0 0 2 2 0 1 2 0 3 2 351 2 knowledge gain overall overall 489 experience - learning 20 0.8% 4 5 4 0 6 3 3 2 12 4 8 8 7 1352 overall Total Generally learned a lot or grew intellectually 69 2.7% 19 12 23 4 10 14 17 5 33 14 23 32 20 4953 2 knowledge gain self general 110 self-understanding - general 6 0.2% 3 1 2 0 0 0 3 1 2 1 2 3 1 554 2 knowledge gain self abilities 368 self-understanding - abilities - oral presentation 2 0.1% 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 255 2 knowledge gain self abilities 111 self-understanding - of own abilities 18 0.7% 6 3 8 1 0 2 5 0 11 5 6 7 5 1356 2 knowledge gain self abilities 344 self-understanding - of own abilities - academic 6 0.2% 2 2 2 0 0 2 3 0 1 0 3 3 3 357 2 knowledge gain self abilities 360 self-understanding - of own abilities - communication 2 0.1% 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 258 2 knowledge gain self abilities 349 self-understanding - of own abilities - research 5 0.2% 3 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 3 1 3 1 0 559 2 knowledge gain self abilities 347 self-understanding - of own abilities - writing 3 0.1% 1 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 1 0 2 160 2 knowledge gain self indep 129 intellectual independence 5 0.2% 1 3 1 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 2 3 1 461 2 knowledge gain self interests 115 self-understanding - of interests (career clarification) 30 1.2% 9 9 8 1 3 11 7 2 10 8 11 11 8 22

62 2 knowledge gain self limitations 113 self-understanding - of lack of quality in performance - general 1 0.0% 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

63 2 knowledge gain self limitations 346 self-understanding - of lack of quality in performance - time management 1 0.0% 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

64 2 knowledge gain self limitations 112 self-understanding - of own limitations 4 0.2% 3 0 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 3 0 465 2 knowledge gain self worth 150 developed sense of accomplishment 28 1.1% 10 10 8 0 0 9 3 1 15 9 9 10 9 1966 2 knowledge gain self worth 182 realized or surpassed expectations for self 3 0.1% 1 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 2 1 267 2 knowledge gain self worth 358 sense of self worth 1 0.0% 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 168 self Total Gained self-understanding or abilities and interests 115 4.4% 42 31 36 2 4 35 29 5 46 29 42 44 31 8469 3 disposition gain behavior challenge 353 challenged self 3 0.1% 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 2 1 270 3 disposition gain behavior patience 155 learned patience necessary for research 1 0.0% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 171 3 disposition gain behavior perseverance 166 perseverance 4 0.2% 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 2 1 372 3 disposition gain behavior perseverance 154 tolerance of obstacles, risk, failure, ambiguity 6 0.2% 4 1 1 0 0 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 1 5

73 behavior Total Developed patience, perseverance, willingness to face challenges 14 0.5% 6 5 3 0 0 6 1 3 4 3 5 6 3 11

74 3 disposition gain confidence general 156 self-confidence - general, pos-gained 6 0.2% 1 3 2 0 0 1 1 1 3 2 2 2 0 675 3 disposition gain confidence academic 359 self-confidence - academic - articulating ideas 3 0.1% 0 2 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 376 3 disposition gain confidence academic 157 self-confidence - academic - general 17 0.7% 7 8 1 0 1 6 2 2 7 4 7 6 3 1477 3 disposition gain confidence academic 351 self-confidence - academic - ideas 3 0.1% 0 3 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 278 3 disposition gain confidence academic 159 self-confidence - academic - writing 3 0.1% 1 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 279 3 disposition gain confidence personal 161 self-confidence - personal - general 1 0.0% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 080 confidence Total Gained self confidence in abilities 33 1.3% 10 16 6 0 1 13 5 3 12 7 15 11 6 2781 3 disposition gain motiv collab 146 motivation - toward collaboration on project 1 0.0% 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 082 3 disposition gain motiv project 147 motivation - toward project 12 0.5% 1 4 2 5 0 1 7 2 2 1 8 3 2 1083 3 disposition gain motiv research 143 motivation - toward research 2 0.1% 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 284 motiv Total Became more interested in research or project 15 0.6% 2 4 4 5 0 2 7 3 3 1 10 4 3 1285 4 profdevel profdevel general 169 professional development - general 12 0.5% 2 4 3 3 0 4 5 0 3 2 5 5 2 1086 4 profdevel profdevel conference 172 professional development - gave conference presentation 7 0.3% 1 5 1 0 0 2 3 0 2 0 1 6 3 4

87 4 profdevel profdevel jobprep 175 professional development - helped prepare for / led directly to job 12 0.5% 4 5 1 1 1 1 5 2 4 1 5 6 3 9

88 4 profdevel profdevel lifeprep 181 better prepared for life 3 0.1% 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 1 3 0

89 4 profdevel profdevel postproj 178 professional development - learned ways of developing project post-graduation 2 0.1% 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2

90 4 profdevel profdevel publishable 173 professional development - produced work that was or will be published (or is publishable) 1 0.0% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

91 4 profdevel profdevel recognition 362 professional development - art work put on display 1 0.0% 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 192 4 profdevel profdevel schoolprep 179 preparation for grad school/professional school 23 0.9% 12 5 6 0 0 6 9 2 6 2 4 17 8 1593 profdevel Total Gained preparation for job, graduate school, or life generally 61 2.4% 21 22 13 4 1 16 24 4 17 5 17 39 19 4294 6 cap exper research enjoyed 485 experience - enjoyed, appreciated research 30 1.2% 8 12 7 1 2 17 5 0 8 3 12 15 10 2095 6 cap exper research enjoyed 488 experience - research - develop ideas 4 0.2% 2 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 3

96 6 cap exper research enjoyed 491 experience - research - enjoyed lit review, using primary sources 8 0.3% 3 3 2 0 0 2 5 0 1 0 5 3 4 4

97 6 cap exper research enjoyed 487 experience - research - getting results 6 0.2% 2 1 3 0 0 3 2 0 1 2 3 1 3 398 6 cap exper research enjoyed 486 experience - research -enjoyed working in lab 3 0.1% 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 299 research Total Enjoyed, appreciated research experience 51 2.0% 17 18 13 1 2 25 13 0 13 8 22 21 19 32

Tables: 2 2/22/2012

Part 5, Page: 31

Line Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 ID Description Cnt % NS SS Hum Prof Self Red Tan Wht Yellow L M H M F100 6 cap exper overall poitive 484 positive/enjoyable/great/ experience - 52 2.0% 18 18 12 2 2 20 9 5 18 14 20 18 17 35

101 overall Total Capstone experience was enjoyable, great, or generally positive 52 2.0% 18 18 12 2 2 20 9 5 18 14 20 18 17 35

102 6 cap exper projmgt organiz 70 project management - organized project well 9 0.3% 1 5 2 0 1 1 1 3 4 1 4 4 4 5

103 6 cap exper projmgt own 68 project management - saw major project through from beginning to end 24 0.9% 4 10 8 1 1 12 7 1 4 4 7 13 5 19

104 6 cap exper projmgt own 59 project management - taking responsibility 8 0.3% 1 5 1 1 0 3 2 0 3 1 5 2 3 5105 projmgt Total Managed project well 41 1.6% 6 20 11 2 2 16 10 4 11 6 16 19 12 29106 6 cap exper freedom general 409 freedom - general 5 0.2% 1 2 1 1 0 1 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3107 6 cap exper freedom direction 415 freedom - explore field not offered in college curriculum 3 0.1% 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 2108 6 cap exper freedom direction 417 freedom - to develop own research plan 8 0.3% 2 1 4 1 0 4 2 1 1 1 1 6 2 6109 6 cap exper freedom direction 416 freedom - to direct course of project 16 0.6% 6 4 4 0 2 2 1 5 8 5 5 6 5 11110 6 cap exper freedom direction 410 freedom to choose own topic 50 1.9% 7 16 13 13 0 9 23 8 10 7 18 25 13 37111 6 cap exper freedom presenting 412 freedom - how to present project 6 0.2% 0 2 1 3 0 1 4 1 0 1 3 2 2 4112 6 cap exper freedom work 418 freedom - to both teach and learn 2 0.1% 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1113 6 cap exper freedom work 414 freedom - to set own deadlines 3 0.1% 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 1 1 2114 6 cap exper freedom work 413 freedom - to work at own pace 7 0.3% 2 4 0 1 0 2 2 0 3 2 4 1 1 6115 6 cap exper freedom work 411 freedom - to work independently 20 0.8% 5 5 5 3 2 4 6 0 10 1 7 12 6 14

116 freedom Total Student appreciated the freedom to choose topic, direct project, work independently 120 4.6% 24 37 31 23 4 27 41 15 37 21 41 58 34 86

117 6 cap exper mentor general 422 mentor - great overall 86 3.3% 22 27 30 3 4 29 16 14 27 14 35 37 18 68118 6 cap exper mentor feedback 449 mentor - discuss data 1 0.0% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1119 6 cap exper mentor feedback 424 mentor - helpful - feedback 33 1.3% 8 16 6 3 0 6 9 5 13 6 14 13 10 23120 6 cap exper mentor helpful 462 mentor - dedication 6 0.2% 2 3 1 0 0 0 1 2 3 1 1 4 2 4121 6 cap exper mentor helpful 455 mentor - helped make project more interesting 2 0.1% 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1

122 6 cap exper mentor helpful 461 mentor - helped student connect capstone experiences with real-world challenges 1 0.0% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1

123 6 cap exper mentor helpful 438 mentor - helped student engage with material in new way 4 0.2% 0 2 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 1 1 2 2124 6 cap exper mentor helpful 439 mentor - helped student teach self 4 0.2% 2 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 2 0 1 3 1 3125 6 cap exper mentor helpful 437 mentor - helped student understand concepts 5 0.2% 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 2 2 0 2 3 1 4126 6 cap exper mentor helpful 423 mentor - helpful 66 2.5% 21 22 17 2 4 21 17 5 23 16 25 25 16 50127 6 cap exper mentor helpful 429 mentor - helpful - academically 6 0.2% 1 4 1 0 0 4 2 0 0 3 2 1 1 5128 6 cap exper mentor helpful 430 mentor - helpful - writing process 2 0.1% 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1129 6 cap exper mentor helpful 453 mentor - honest 1 0.0% 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1130 6 cap exper mentor helpful 458 mentor - positive attitude 3 0.1% 2 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 2131 6 cap exper mentor interest 435 mentor - interested in topic/capstone 15 0.6% 0 9 4 0 2 8 1 1 5 4 2 9 3 12132 6 cap exper mentor interest 454 mentor - truly interested in student's success 2 0.1% 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 2133 6 cap exper mentor knowledge 432 mentor - knowledgeable 6 0.2% 2 0 3 0 1 1 1 2 2 0 1 5 0 6134 6 cap exper mentor knowledge 433 mentor - knowledgeable - about topic 1 0.0% 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1135 6 cap exper mentor meetings 460 mentor - all faculty present during meetings 1 0.0% 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1136 6 cap exper mentor meetings 446 mentor - available 23 0.9% 8 7 5 1 2 7 3 3 10 7 6 10 10 13137 6 cap exper mentor meetings 448 mentor - meetings positive 2 0.1% 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1138 6 cap exper mentor projmgt 503 experience - deadlines clear and helpful 4 0.2% 0 3 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 3 2 2139 6 cap exper mentor projmgt 451 mentor - challenged student 1 0.0% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1140 6 cap exper mentor projmgt 444 mentor - encouraging - own ideas 6 0.2% 2 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 5 0 5 1 0 6141 6 cap exper mentor projmgt 443 mentor - encouraging - risks 2 0.1% 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 2142 6 cap exper mentor projmgt 447 mentor - pushed student 7 0.3% 0 5 2 0 0 5 1 0 1 0 0 7 2 5143 6 cap exper mentor projmgt 450 mentor - resourceful 2 0.1% 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 2144 6 cap exper mentor rapor 236 collab - enjoyed connection with advisor 27 1.0% 8 11 7 1 0 13 7 1 6 6 11 10 6 21145 6 cap exper mentor rapor 218 enjoyed working with two mentors 6 0.2% 1 2 3 0 0 5 1 0 0 1 2 3 3 3146 6 cap exper mentor rapor 229 great working intensely one-on-one 33 1.3% 8 16 7 0 2 16 4 1 12 3 11 19 9 24147 6 cap exper mentor rapor 434 mentor - approachable 1 0.0% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1148 6 cap exper mentor rapor 442 mentor - encouraging - general 6 0.2% 1 1 3 1 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 4 1 5149 6 cap exper mentor rapor 457 mentor - patient 1 0.0% 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1150 6 cap exper mentor rapor 459 mentor - respected student's limitations 1 0.0% 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1151 6 cap exper mentor rapor 452 mentor - respected student's point of view 3 0.1% 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 1 1 2

Tables: 3 2/22/2012

Part 5, Page: 32

Line Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 ID Description Cnt % NS SS Hum Prof Self Red Tan Wht Yellow L M H M F152 6 cap exper mentor rapor 456 mentor - student comfortable asking questions 2 0.1% 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2153 6 cap exper mentor rapor 440 mentor - supportive 23 0.9% 7 7 5 4 0 8 4 2 9 5 8 10 6 17154 6 cap exper mentor rapor 441 mentor - supportive - personal 4 0.2% 2 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 2 1 0 4155 6 cap exper mentor rapor 445 mentor - understanding 3 0.1% 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 2

156 mentor Total Mentor was great overall, helpful, supportive, available, interested, gave good feedback 402 15.5% 103 149 112 16 22 144 79 43 136 72 146 184 99 303

157 6 cap exper personal communication 492 experience - comm - enjoyed presenting 7 0.3% 2 2 3 0 0 3 2 0 2 1 2 4 3 4158 6 cap exper personal communication 508 experience - comm - enjoyed the writing 5 0.2% 0 1 2 1 1 3 0 1 1 1 3 1 1 4159 6 cap exper personal emotional 507 experience - exciting 2 0.1% 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2160 6 cap exper personal emotional 499 experience - interesting 5 0.2% 0 2 1 2 0 1 1 1 2 4 0 1 2 3161 6 cap exper personal expectations 352 realized or surpassed expectations - writing 1 0.0% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1162 6 cap exper personal learning 509 experience - loved learning environment 4 0.2% 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 3 1 3163 6 cap exper personal misc 228 enjoyed working with multiple departments 2 0.1% 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 2164 6 cap exper personal project 495 experience - completing large project 22 0.8% 4 8 7 0 3 6 1 0 15 6 8 8 9 13165 6 cap exper personal skills 506 experience - enjoyed financial analysis 1 0.0% 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0166 6 cap exper personal topic 490 experience - enjoyed topic 41 1.6% 5 9 21 1 5 14 7 2 18 7 15 19 10 31167 6 cap exper personal value 498 experience - important 4 0.2% 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 0 3 1 3168 6 cap exper personal value 501 experience - meaningful 1 0.0% 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1169 6 cap exper personal value 505 experience - rewarding 12 0.5% 4 3 4 1 0 1 2 3 6 2 3 7 5 7170 6 cap exper personal value 504 experience - worthwhile 4 0.2% 1 2 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 2 3 1171 6 cap exper personal work 502 experience - loved the focused work 4 0.2% 2 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 4 0 2 2172 6 cap exper personal work 493 experience - loved the hard work 5 0.2% 3 1 1 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 2 3 2173 personal Total Experience was worthwhile, rewarding 120 4.6% 27 33 40 9 11 39 18 11 52 23 41 56 41 79174 6 cap exper project general 293 project - good quality 11 0.4% 5 3 3 0 0 2 5 0 4 2 5 4 4 7175 6 cap exper project community 275 project benefits local community 2 0.1% 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1176 6 cap exper project research 364 research - led to patent 1 0.0% 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1177 6 cap exper project research 363 research - project contributed to field 6 0.2% 2 2 0 0 2 1 0 1 4 2 0 4 4 2

178 6 cap exper project research 290 research - unique topic / took on project that had little prior research 18 0.7% 2 9 7 0 0 9 1 2 6 5 7 6 3 15

179 6 cap exper project scope 183 took on ambitious project 1 0.0% 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0180 project Total Capstone project itself was of good quality or of worth 39 1.5% 12 15 10 0 2 16 6 3 14 10 12 17 13 26181 7 cap admin organiz comps 356 comps instead of project 2 0.1% 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 2182 7 cap admin organiz other 357 able to integrate other work or interests into project 14 0.5% 3 4 4 3 0 5 1 3 5 2 5 7 3 11183 7 cap admin organiz other 371 audit program helpful 1 0.0% 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1184 7 cap admin organiz other 370 better than just classroom experience 3 0.1% 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 2 2 1

185 7 cap admin organiz structure 800 helfuf to exchange ideas/experiences with other capstone students 7 0.3% 4 0 2 0 1 0 3 0 4 0 2 5 0 7

186 7 cap admin organiz structure 365 capstone guidelines clear and helpful 1 0.0% 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1187 7 cap admin organiz structure 366 in-class research updates helped stay on track 2 0.1% 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 2188 7 cap admin organiz time 361 capstone pace 3 0.1% 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 2 1 2189 7 cap admin organiz time 354 having multiple terms for capstone 6 0.2% 1 1 4 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 4 2 0 6

190 organiz Total Capstone process had benefits - able to integrate various interests into project, spread out over multiple terms 39 1.5% 10 7 13 8 1 5 17 6 11 2 15 22 6 33

191 7 cap admin outside fieldwork 527 community - fieldwork - positive 20 0.8% 6 6 5 3 0 4 11 0 5 2 9 9 4 16192 7 cap admin outside travel 494 experience - opportunity to travel 13 0.5% 4 7 1 0 1 7 3 0 3 4 4 5 6 7

193 outside Total Fieldwork/travel positive experience 33 1.3% 10 13 6 3 1 11 14 0 8 6 13 14 10 23194 7 cap admin prep course 367 pre-project data collection 1 0.0% 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1195 7 cap admin prep course 355 pre-project junior seminar helpful 4 0.2% 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 2 1 1 2 1 0 4196 prep Total Preparation for the capstone was helpful 5 0.2% 2 2 1 0 0 2 0 2 1 1 3 1 0 5197 7 cap admin resources library 10104 helpful library support 3 0.1% 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 2 1 2198 7 cap admin resources library 372 library purchased materials necessary for project 1 0.0% 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1199 7 cap admin resources support 258 admin - field support 2 0.1% 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 2200 7 cap admin resources support 801 eqiuipment/facilities good 1 0.0% 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1201 7 cap admin resources support 100 good support from collaborators, teamwork 42 1.6% 15 11 11 3 2 6 16 2 18 11 14 17 9 33

202 7 cap admin resources support 104 got good help from others (research assistants, other students, others) 25 1.0% 6 9 9 1 0 8 8 0 9 6 8 11 5 20

Tables: 4 2/22/2012

Part 5, Page: 33

Line Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 ID Description Cnt % NS SS Hum Prof Self Red Tan Wht Yellow L M H M F

203 resources Total Availability of equipment, library, facilities, human participant resources for the project 74 2.9% 22 22 22 5 3 15 28 2 29 17 25 32 15 59

204

205 POSITIVE COMMENT SUBTOTAL: 1621 62.5% 460 558 414 97 90 513 393 140 575 302 609 710 449 1172206

207 NEGATIVE

208 1 skill gain comm oral 10051 not prepared for oral defense 1 0.0% 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1209 1 skill gain comm writing 10215 writing - had difficulty synthesizing 5 0.2% 0 2 2 1 0 3 1 1 0 0 2 3 1 4210 comm Total False: Improved writing or communication skills 6 0.2% 0 3 2 1 0 3 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 5211 1 skill gain crit thinking integrate 10084 CT - only a paper, even if bigger 2 0.1% 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 2212 1 skill gain crit thinking integrate 10083 CT - toic too narrow 1 0.0% 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0213 crit thinking Total False: Improved critical thinking skills 3 0.1% 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 2 1 2214 1 skill gain projmgt organiz 10073 project management -- difficulty managing large project 4 0.2% 0 3 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 0 3 0 4215 1 skill gain projmgt timeman 10061 time management - meeting deadlines 4 0.2% 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2216 1 skill gain projmgt timeman 10060 time management skills- developed; problem with 21 0.8% 8 8 4 1 0 9 3 3 6 5 9 7 9 12

217 projmgt Total False: Improved project management skills; learned to work independently 29 1.1% 8 12 6 2 1 11 4 5 9 7 11 11 11 18

218 1 skill gain research quant 10009 quantitative skills - did not improve 1 0.0% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1219 research Total False: Gained research skills 1 0.0% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1220 3 disposition gain confidence general 10156 self-confidence - general, lessened 2 0.1% 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0221 confidence Total False: Gained self confidence in abilities 2 0.1% 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0222 4 profdevel profdevel general 10169 professional development - general; less helpful than hoped 2 0.1% 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 2


224 4 profdevel profdevel schoolprep 10179 preparation for grad school/professional school; neg - too focused on grad school 1 0.0% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

225 profdevel Total False: Gained preparation for job, graduate school, or life generally 9 0.3% 3 3 3 0 0 3 0 2 4 2 6 1 1 8

226 6 cap exper research enjoyed 10485 experience - did not enjoy, appreciate research 6 0.2% 2 1 3 0 0 1 3 0 2 0 2 4 2 4227 6 cap exper research enjoyed 10486 experience - research -did not enjoy working in lab 2 0.1% 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2228 6 cap exper research litreview 10019 literature review - difficulty locating sources 4 0.2% 0 1 2 1 0 2 2 0 0 1 0 3 1 3229 6 cap exper research research 10522 experience - too much focus on research 1 0.0% 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0230 research Total False: Enjoyed, appreciated research experience 13 0.5% 4 2 6 1 0 6 5 0 2 2 3 8 4 9231 6 cap exper overall negative 20484 negative experience overall 2 0.1% 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1

232 overall Total False: Capstone experience was enjoyable, great, or generally positive 2 0.1% 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1

233 6 cap exper projmgt organiz 10207 reached project goals; neg - not reached as hoped 3 0.1% 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 3

234 6 cap exper projmgt own 10059 project management - taking responsibility; neg-didn't own project 2 0.1% 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2

235 6 cap exper projmgt timeman 10214 time management - project not finished 2 0.1% 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1236 6 cap exper projmgt timeman 10213 time management - started process late/ fell behind 7 0.3% 0 2 4 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 4237 projmgt Total Started late, didn't finish or reach goals 14 0.5% 4 4 5 0 1 1 5 3 5 2 5 7 4 10238 6 cap exper freedom direction 10419 freedom - difficult directing course of own project 8 0.3% 3 1 3 0 1 5 2 0 1 2 3 3 2 6239 6 cap exper freedom direction 10417 freedom - not able to develop own research plan 2 0.1% 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 1240 6 cap exper freedom direction 10416 freedom -not able to direct course of project 5 0.2% 2 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 4 2 2 1 1 4241 6 cap exper freedom direction 10410 freedom- unable to choose own topic 13 0.5% 2 3 8 0 0 3 7 0 3 2 4 7 3 10242 6 cap exper freedom topic 10421 freedom - did not have guidance in choosing topic 3 0.1% 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 3243 6 cap exper freedom work 10420 freedom - forced to work independently 7 0.3% 2 2 1 0 2 2 0 2 3 2 2 3 3 4244 freedom Total Unable to choose topic or lacked guidance 38 1.5% 12 8 14 0 4 11 9 3 15 8 14 16 10 28245 6 cap exper mentor general 10422 mentor - not good overall 9 0.3% 1 6 2 0 0 8 1 0 0 3 2 4 2 7246 6 cap exper mentor feedback 10483 mentor - did not appreciate quality of project 1 0.0% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0247 6 cap exper mentor feedback 10424 mentor - unhelpful - feedback 19 0.7% 4 12 1 1 1 8 2 1 8 3 7 9 3 16248 6 cap exper mentor feedback 10427 mentor - unhelpful - feedback - amount 11 0.4% 0 8 3 0 0 6 3 0 2 0 4 7 1 10249 6 cap exper mentor feedback 10428 mentor - unhelpful - feedback - consistent 3 0.1% 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 3 1 2250 6 cap exper mentor feedback 10425 mentor - unhelpful - feedback - thorough 2 0.1% 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 1251 6 cap exper mentor feedback 10426 mentor - unhelpful - feedback - timely 23 0.9% 3 12 6 1 1 6 10 2 5 3 10 10 6 17252 6 cap exper mentor feedback 10701 Not satisfied with grade 1 0.0% 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0253 6 cap exper mentor helpful 10423 mentor - unhelpful 23 0.9% 3 14 4 0 2 5 10 1 7 5 13 5 5 18

Tables: 5 2/22/2012

Part 5, Page: 34

Line Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 ID Description Cnt % NS SS Hum Prof Self Red Tan Wht Yellow L M H M F254 6 cap exper mentor helpful 10431 mentor - unhelpful - conducting research 2 0.1% 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 2255 6 cap exper mentor helpful 10430 mentor - unhelpful - writing process 2 0.1% 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2256 6 cap exper mentor interest 10435 mentor - uninterested in topic/capstone 11 0.4% 2 5 3 1 0 2 1 2 6 0 5 6 2 9257 6 cap exper mentor interest 10436 mentor - other faculty uninterested in topic/capstone 4 0.2% 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 3 1 2 2258 6 cap exper mentor knowledge 10482 mentor - did not understand capstone process 2 0.1% 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1259 6 cap exper mentor knowledge 10433 mentor - not knowledgeable - about topic 11 0.4% 1 6 1 0 3 5 0 1 5 3 3 5 6 5260 6 cap exper mentor meetings 10446 mentor - unavailable 31 1.2% 9 9 11 1 1 6 7 4 14 4 12 15 7 24261 6 cap exper mentor meetings 10478 mentor - did not read drafts before meetings 2 0.1% 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1262 6 cap exper mentor meetings 10474 mentor - forgot meetings 1 0.0% 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1263 6 cap exper mentor meetings 10476 mentor - meetings could be exhausting 1 0.0% 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1264 6 cap exper mentor meetings 10477 mentor - meetings insufficient 8 0.3% 2 2 4 0 0 4 3 0 1 1 2 5 0 8265 6 cap exper mentor meetings 10448 mentor - meetings not positive 2 0.1% 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1266 6 cap exper mentor meetings 10479 mentor - not prepared for meetings 1 0.0% 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1267 6 cap exper mentor projmgt 10503 experience - deadlinesnot clear and helpful 9 0.3% 4 2 3 0 0 0 1 0 8 1 3 5 3 6268 6 cap exper mentor projmgt 10467 mentor - did not follow syllabus 4 0.2% 2 0 2 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 2 2 0 4269 6 cap exper mentor projmgt 10481 mentor - did not follow through on what promised 1 0.0% 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1270 6 cap exper mentor projmgt 10443 mentor - encouraging - risks 2 0.1% 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 2271 6 cap exper mentor projmgt 10466 mentor - not enough direction 21 0.8% 6 9 5 0 1 5 5 3 8 2 12 7 7 14272 6 cap exper mentor projmgt 10463 mentor - organization 8 0.3% 2 3 3 0 0 2 3 1 2 1 2 5 2 6273 6 cap exper mentor projmgt 10473 mentor - unclear about expectations 8 0.3% 2 0 5 0 1 2 3 0 3 1 2 5 3 5274 6 cap exper mentor rapor 10434 mentor - unapproachable 2 0.1% 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1275 6 cap exper mentor rapor 10475 mentor - did not get along 8 0.3% 3 4 1 0 0 7 1 0 0 2 4 2 5 3276 6 cap exper mentor rapor 10468 mentor - difficult to understand 1 0.0% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1277 6 cap exper mentor rapor 10445 mentor - not understanding 1 0.0% 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1278 6 cap exper mentor rapor 10452 mentor - did not respectstudent's point of view 3 0.1% 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 2279 6 cap exper mentor rapor 10440 mentor -u supportive 13 0.5% 0 5 6 1 1 5 1 1 6 1 6 6 4 9280 6 cap exper mentor rapor 10441 mentor - unsupportive - personal 3 0.1% 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 1 2281 6 cap exper mentor xmisc 10464 mentor - did not have a mentor 2 0.1% 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 1282 6 cap exper mentor xmisc 10472 mentor - multiple advisors 11 0.4% 4 7 0 0 0 3 2 3 3 2 4 5 3 8283 6 cap exper mentor xmisc 10465 mentor - needed to change mentors during capstone 2 0.1% 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 2284 6 cap exper mentor xmisc 10469 mentor - new professor 4 0.2% 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 2 1 2 2285 6 cap exper mentor xmisc 10471 mentor - too many advisees 1 0.0% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1286 6 cap exper mentor xmisc 10470 mentor - visiting professor 1 0.0% 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1287 6 cap exper mentor xmisc 10480 mentor - worked too much with one mentor 1 0.0% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

288 mentor Total Mentor unhelpful, poor or untimely feedback, unavailable, unorganized, unclear expectations, uninterested 276 10.6% 65 117 75 8 11 94 66 24 92 40 115 121 74 202

289 6 cap exper personal communication 10492 experience - comm - presented data too many times 1 0.0% 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1290 6 cap exper personal communication 10508 experience - comm -did not enjoy the writing 8 0.3% 1 3 3 0 1 3 0 1 4 1 1 6 3 5291 6 cap exper personal difficulty 10515 experience - difficult receiving constant critique 1 0.0% 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1292 6 cap exper personal difficulty 10528 experience - difficulty - general 20 0.8% 7 9 3 0 1 4 2 2 12 6 7 7 8 12293 6 cap exper personal difficulty 10524 experience - difficulty - sustaining creative energy 2 0.1% 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2294 6 cap exper personal difficulty 10513 experience - difficulty - thesis relative to comps 1 0.0% 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0295 6 cap exper personal difficulty 10520 experience - difficulty - two capstones at once 4 0.2% 1 2 1 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 1 3 0 4296 6 cap exper personal emotional 10512 experience - depressing 3 0.1% 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 2 1 2297 6 cap exper personal emotional 10519 experience - felt lost 4 0.2% 1 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 1 1 0 4298 6 cap exper personal emotional 10511 experience - frustrating 11 0.4% 3 5 2 1 0 1 7 2 1 1 3 7 2 9299 6 cap exper personal emotional 10510 experience - stressful 126 4.9% 31 48 36 2 9 49 15 13 49 33 45 48 30 96300 6 cap exper personal emotional 10601 lost interest in topic over time 5 0.2% 0 3 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 3 2 2 3301 6 cap exper personal misc 10526 experience - other disappointment 9 0.3% 2 3 3 0 0 4 1 4 0 5 4 0 4 5302 6 cap exper personal topic 10490 experience - enjoyed topic 2 0.1% 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1303 6 cap exper personal value 10523 experience - reflection 1 0.0% 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1304 6 cap exper personal value 10504 experience - worthwhile 2 0.1% 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 2 0305 6 cap exper personal work 10502 experience - loved the focused work 2 0.1% 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 2306 personal Total Experience was stressful, difficult, disappointing 202 7.8% 48 78 60 3 12 68 37 27 70 50 70 82 54 148307 6 cap exper project general 10293 project - good quality 3 0.1% 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 2

Tables: 6 2/22/2012

Part 5, Page: 35

Line Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 ID Description Cnt % NS SS Hum Prof Self Red Tan Wht Yellow L M H M F

308 6 cap exper project research 10290 research - unique topic / took on project that had little prior research 1 0.0% 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

309 6 cap exper project scope 10390 project too ambitious 4 0.2% 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 3 1 1 3310 6 cap exper project scope 10391 project too rigidly defined 1 0.0% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1311 project Total False: Capstone project itself was of good quality or of worth 9 0.3% 1 3 4 0 1 3 2 1 3 1 4 4 2 7312 6 cap exper self personal 10210 student personal problems caused difficulty 5 0.2% 0 1 4 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 2 2 3 2313 self Total False: Gained self-understanding or abilities and interests 5 0.2% 0 1 4 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 2 2 3 2314 6 cap exper structural difficulty 10514 experience - obstacles 2 0.1% 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2315 6 cap exper structural difficulty 10521 experience - obstacles - conducting research 9 0.3% 5 3 0 1 0 3 1 3 2 2 3 4 3 6316 6 cap exper structural difficulty 10518 experience - obstacles - design 3 0.1% 2 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 3317 6 cap exper structural peers 10700 Other students' negative attitudes toward project 1 0.0% 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1318 6 cap exper structural peers 10517 experience - group work difficulty 4 0.2% 0 2 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 3 1 3

319 structural Total Various obstacles to conducting the project were encountered 19 0.7% 8 6 2 2 1 6 5 3 5 3 6 10 4 15

320 6 cap exper workload effort 10401 capstone process too much work 16 0.6% 8 2 3 3 0 2 9 2 3 3 6 7 4 12321 7 cap admin organiz credits 10600 capstone not worth enough credit hours 5 0.2% 2 1 1 1 0 0 4 0 1 0 2 3 2 3

322 6 cap exper workload organiz 10220 project management - difficulty balancing with other coursework 49 1.9% 14 16 17 0 2 17 10 10 12 11 13 25 13 36

323 6 cap exper workload organiz 12201 project management - difficulty balancing with other personal activities 24 0.9% 4 12 7 0 1 14 3 2 5 4 9 11 6 18

324 6 cap exper workload time 10389 capstone process too time consuming 23 0.9% 5 10 3 3 2 10 6 1 6 4 9 10 7 16325 6 cap exper workload timereq 10388 too time consuming 13 0.5% 6 4 1 2 0 5 2 2 4 2 5 6 6 7

326 workload Total Difficulties were encountered balancing the capstone work with other coursework or personal activities 130 5.0% 39 45 32 9 5 48 34 17 31 24 44 62 38 92

327 7 cap admin organiz class 10377 capstone class - design, structure 6 0.2% 0 1 5 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 2 4328 7 cap admin organiz class 10384 capstone class - did not meet enough 3 0.1% 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 3 0 0 3329 7 cap admin organiz class 10383 capstone class - not relevant to specific topic 4 0.2% 0 1 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 3 1 3330 7 cap admin organiz class 10385 capstone class - not useful 12 0.5% 3 2 7 0 0 0 10 2 0 1 4 7 3 9331 7 cap admin organiz class 10382 capstone class - time consuming 2 0.1% 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1332 7 cap admin organiz comps 10256 admin - organization of department comps 2 0.1% 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 2333 7 cap admin organiz comps 10356 comps instead of project; neg - just took test 2 0.1% 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 2 0334 7 cap admin organiz grading 10525 experience - evaluation too subjective 2 0.1% 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1335 7 cap admin organiz other 10260 admin - IRIS/IRB constraints 5 0.2% 1 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 1 3 1 1 4336 7 cap admin organiz structure 10365 capstone guidelines clear and helpful; neg - not clear 12 0.5% 0 2 5 4 1 0 7 1 4 2 1 9 4 8

337 7 cap admin organiz structure 10387 capstone project/grade carries too much weight relative to other requirements 5 0.2% 0 2 1 1 1 0 2 1 2 2 2 1 3 2

338 7 cap admin organiz structure 10405 capstone structure not flexible enough 2 0.1% 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2339 7 cap admin organiz structure 10398 did not have system of accountability to help meet goals 2 0.1% 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1

340 7 cap admin organiz time 10650 not enough presentation time to present necessary information 1 0.0% 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0

341 7 cap admin organiz time 10378 capstone process too long 13 0.5% 2 5 5 1 0 3 7 1 2 6 5 2 9 4342 7 cap admin organiz time 10375 capstone should cover longer time frame 17 0.7% 7 6 4 0 0 1 8 2 6 2 6 9 4 13343 7 cap admin organiz time 10376 capstone should not be spread over three terms 3 0.1% 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 2344 7 cap admin organiz time 10354 having multiple terms for capstone 2 0.1% 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 1345 7 cap admin organiz time 10404 not enough time 20 0.8% 6 7 6 1 0 2 9 2 7 6 3 11 3 17346 7 cap admin organiz time 10408 oral presentations took place too late 2 0.1% 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 2347 7 cap admin organiz time 10374 too late in senior year to be helpful for grad school 2 0.1% 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1348 7 cap admin organiz topic 10516 experience - needed to change topic in middle 2 0.1% 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 0

349 organiz TotalCapstone guidelines not clear, requirement carries too much weight, time frame or terms to much or too little, capstone class not helpful

121 4.7% 23 38 48 8 4 9 65 11 36 28 39 54 41 80

350 7 cap admin outside fieldwork 10402 did not like placement 2 0.1% 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 2351 7 cap admin outside fieldwork 11000 misc problem with outside placement 4 0.2% 1 0 2 1 0 0 4 0 0 1 2 1 2 2352 7 cap admin outside fieldwork 10403 problems with personnel at placement 1 0.0% 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1353 7 cap admin outside fieldwork 10393 student teaching time consuming 3 0.1% 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 3354 7 cap admin outside fieldwork 10399 too much expected from facility 1 0.0% 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0355 7 cap admin outside fieldwork 10392 travel difficult 3 0.1% 1 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 2 3 0356 7 cap admin outside fieldwork 10394 volunteer hours requirement 1 0.0% 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1357 outside Total Outside placements caused problem 15 0.6% 2 5 4 4 0 2 13 0 0 2 5 8 6 9

Tables: 7 2/22/2012

Part 5, Page: 36

Line Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 ID Description Cnt % NS SS Hum Prof Self Red Tan Wht Yellow L M H M F358 7 cap admin prep course 10397 pre-project - did not work on project before capstone 6 0.2% 3 2 1 0 0 1 1 3 1 2 1 3 0 6359 7 cap admin prep course 10355 pre-project junior seminar helpful; neg - didn't help 5 0.2% 0 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 4 1 1 3 2 3360 7 cap admin prep course 11011 statistical preparation insufficient 6 0.2% 1 5 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 1 3 2 0 6361 7 cap admin prep research 10212 pre-project - research design skills lacking 1 0.0% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1362 7 cap admin prep wellprep 10186 pre-project - well prepared in general 5 0.2% 0 2 3 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 4 1 0 5363 prep Total Preparation for the capstone waslacking 23 0.9% 4 12 6 0 1 6 1 5 11 4 10 9 2 21364 7 cap admin resources access 10400 availability/cooperation of human subjects 7 0.3% 1 4 1 1 0 1 3 2 1 4 3 0 4 3365 7 cap admin resources equipment 10381 access to equipment 8 0.3% 2 4 1 0 1 2 0 0 6 1 3 4 1 7366 7 cap admin resources equipment 10259 admin - equipment/software issues 12 0.5% 1 8 1 0 2 3 1 0 8 1 6 5 2 10367 7 cap admin resources equipment 10379 wireless internet unreliable 1 0.0% 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1368 7 cap admin resources facilities 10386 access to workspace 1 0.0% 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1369 7 cap admin resources facilities 10395 place to store resources 1 0.0% 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1370 7 cap admin resources funding 10406 needed to pay to print thesis 1 0.0% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1371 7 cap admin resources funding 10180 neg- denied funding for project 6 0.2% 2 2 2 0 0 4 0 1 1 0 3 3 1 5372 7 cap admin resources library 10380 library hours limited 2 0.1% 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2373 7 cap admin resources library 10396 library primary sources 2 0.1% 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1374 7 cap admin resources library 11001 difficulty obtaining library materials/sources 10 0.4% 2 4 4 0 0 2 3 1 4 4 1 5 1 9375 7 cap admin resources support 10801 too much out of pocket cost 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0376 7 cap admin resources support 10258 admin - field support 2 0.1% 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 0377 7 cap admin resources support 10255 admin - working with college administrators 2 0.1% 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0

378 resources Total Availability of equipment, library, facilities, human participant resources for the project 55 2.1% 11 26 14 1 3 18 8 4 25 14 19 22 14 41

379

380 NEGATIVE COMMENT SUBTOTAL: 972 37.5% 236 365 287 39 44 290 260 111 311 192 357 423 273 699381 382 Grand Total 2593 100.0% 696 923 701 136 134 803 653 251 886 494 966 1133 722 1871383 384 8-none none no aspects 185 none - no positive or negative aspect to report ‐ 7 11 11 1 3 11 9 6 7 11 17 5 22 11385 386 Comment Count Statistics:387 Grand Total POSITIVE 1621 63% 460 558 414 97 90 513 393 140 575 302 609 710 449 1172388 Grand Total NEGATIVE 972 37% 236 365 287 39 44 290 260 111 311 192 357 423 273 699389 Grand Total 2593 100% 696 923 701 136 134 803 653 251 886 494 966 1133 722 1871390

391 % OVERALL POSITIVE 63% 66% 60% 59% 71% 67% 64% 60% 56% 65% 61% 63% 63% 62% 63%

Tables: 8 2/22/2012

Part 5, Page: 37

Table Q1‐2: Detailed Tally by Topic of student responses to: COMBINED DATA FOR 2009 and 2010 H=>3.50Please describe any particularly positive or negative aspects of your capstone experience. M= 3.00 to 3.49Positive and negative comments are tallied in separate sections L=<3.00Percents are column percents for all comments combined (positive and negative). BY MAJOR DIVISION BY SCHOOL BY GPA GROUP GENDERLine Group 2 Description Cnt % NS SS Hum Prof Self Red Tan Wht Yellow L M H M F

5 comm Total Improved writing or communication skills 33 1.3% 11 15 5 0 2 15 2 1 15 8 13 12 15 1814 crit thinking Total Improved critical thinking skills 46 1.8% 8 15 15 2 6 11 13 5 17 7 11 28 13 33

22 projmgt Total Improved project management skills; learned to work independently 123 4.7% 43 49 20 2 9 37 25 12 49 25 58 40 33 90

39 research Total Gained research skills 104 4.0% 40 43 11 6 4 31 26 6 41 16 48 40 30 7447 disc Total Gained disciplinary knowledge 32 1.2% 7 12 7 3 3 13 9 2 8 7 13 12 10 2252 overall Total Generally learned a lot or grew intellectually 69 2.7% 19 12 23 4 10 14 17 5 33 14 23 32 20 4968 self Total Gained self-understanding or abilities and interests 115 4.4% 42 31 36 2 4 35 29 5 46 29 42 44 31 84

73 behavior Total Developed patience, perseverance, willingness to face challenges 14 0.5% 6 5 3 0 0 6 1 3 4 3 5 6 3 11

80 confidence Total Gained self confidence in abilities 33 1.3% 10 16 6 0 1 13 5 3 12 7 15 11 6 2784 motiv Total Became more interested in research or project 15 0.6% 2 4 4 5 0 2 7 3 3 1 10 4 3 1293 profdevel Total Gained preparation for job, graduate school, or life generally 61 2.4% 21 22 13 4 1 16 24 4 17 5 17 39 19 4299 research Total Enjoyed, appreciated research experience 51 2.0% 17 18 13 1 2 25 13 0 13 8 22 21 19 32

101 overall Total Capstone experience was enjoyable, great, or generally positive 52 2.0% 18 18 12 2 2 20 9 5 18 14 20 18 17 35

105 projmgt Total Managed project well 41 1.6% 6 20 11 2 2 16 10 4 11 6 16 19 12 29

116 freedom Total Student appreciated the freedom to choose topic, direct project, work independently

120 4.6% 24 37 31 23 4 27 41 15 37 21 41 58 34 86

156 mentor Total Mentor was great overall, helpful, supportive, available, interested, gave good feedback

402 15.5% 103 149 112 16 22 144 79 43 136 72 146 184 99 303

173 personal Total Experience was worthwhile, rewarding 120 4.6% 27 33 40 9 11 39 18 11 52 23 41 56 41 79180 project Total Capstone project itself was of good quality or of worth 39 1.5% 12 15 10 0 2 16 6 3 14 10 12 17 13 26

190 organiz Total Capstone process had benefits - able to integrate various interests into project, spread out over multiple terms

39 1.5% 10 7 13 8 1 5 17 6 11 2 15 22 6 33

193 outside Total Fieldwork/travel positive experience 33 1.3% 10 13 6 3 1 11 14 0 8 6 13 14 10 23196 prep Total Preparation for the capstone was helpful 5 0.2% 2 2 1 0 0 2 0 2 1 1 3 1 0 5

203 resources Total Availability of equipment, library, facilities, human participant resources for the project

74 2.9% 22 22 22 5 3 15 28 2 29 17 25 32 15 59

205 POSITIVE COMMENT SUBTOTAL: 1621 62.5% 460 558 414 97 90 513 393 140 575 302 609 710 449 1172207

210 comm Total False: Improved writing or communication skills 6 0.2% 0 3 2 1 0 3 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 5213 crit thinking Total False: Improved critical thinking skills 3 0.1% 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 2 1 2

217 projmgt Total False: Improved project management skills; learned to work independently

29 1.1% 8 12 6 2 1 11 4 5 9 7 11 11 11 18

219 research Total False: Gained research skills 1 0.0% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1221 confidence Total False: Gained self confidence in abilities 2 0.1% 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0

225 profdevel Total False: Gained preparation for job, graduate school, or life generally 9 0.3% 3 3 3 0 0 3 0 2 4 2 6 1 1 8

230 research Total False: Enjoyed, appreciated research experience 13 0.5% 4 2 6 1 0 6 5 0 2 2 3 8 4 9

232 overall Total False: Capstone experience was enjoyable, great, or generally positive

2 0.1% 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1

237 projmgt Total Started late, didn't finish or reach goals 14 0.5% 4 4 5 0 1 1 5 3 5 2 5 7 4 10244 freedom Total Unable to choose topic or lacked guidance 38 1.5% 12 8 14 0 4 11 9 3 15 8 14 16 10 28

288 mentor Total Mentor unhelpful, poor or untimely feedback, unavailable, unorganized, unclear expectations, uninterested

276 10.6% 65 117 75 8 11 94 66 24 92 40 115 121 74 202

306 personal Total Experience was stressful, difficult, disappointing 202 7.8% 48 78 60 3 12 68 37 27 70 50 70 82 54 148311 project Total False: Capstone project itself was of good quality or of worth 9 0.3% 1 3 4 0 1 3 2 1 3 1 4 4 2 7313 self Total False: Gained self-understanding or abilities and interests 5 0.2% 0 1 4 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 2 2 3 2

319 structural Total Various obstacles to conducting the project were encountered 19 0.7% 8 6 2 2 1 6 5 3 5 3 6 10 4 15

Tables: 9 2/22/2012

Part 5, Page: 38

Line Group 2 Description Cnt % NS SS Hum Prof Self Red Tan Wht Yellow L M H M F

326 workload Total Difficulties were encountered balancing the capstone work with other coursework or personal activities

130 5.0% 39 45 32 9 5 48 34 17 31 24 44 62 38 92

349 organiz Total Capstone guidelines not clear, requirement carries too much weight, time frame or terms to much or too little, capstone class not helpful 121 4.7% 23 38 48 8 4 9 65 11 36 28 39 54 41 80

357 outside Total Outside placements caused problem 15 0.6% 2 5 4 4 0 2 13 0 0 2 5 8 6 9363 prep Total Preparation for the capstone waslacking 23 0.9% 4 12 6 0 1 6 1 5 11 4 10 9 2 21


55 2.1% 11 26 14 1 3 18 8 4 25 14 19 22 14 41

380 NEGATIVE COMMENT SUBTOTAL: 972 37.5% 236 365 287 39 44 290 260 111 311 192 357 423 273 699382 Grand Total 2593 100.0% 696 923 701 136 134 803 653 251 886 494 966 1133 722 1871

Tables: 10 2/22/2012

Part 5, Page: 39

Table Q1‐3: Detailed Tally by Topic of student responses to: COMBINED DATA FOR 2009 and 2010 H=>3.50Please describe any particularly positive or negative aspects of your capstone experience. Percentages of column total M= 3.00 to 3.49Positive and negative comments are tallied in separate sections L=<3.00Percents are column percents for all comments combined (positive and negative). BY MAJOR DIVISION BY SCHOOL BY GPA GROUP GENDERLine Group 2 Description Cnt % NS SS Hum Prof Self Red Tan Wht Yellow L M H M F

5 comm Total Improved writing or communication skills 33 1.3% 1.6% 1.6% 0.7% 0.0% 1.4% 1.7% 0.3% 0.4% 1.7% 1.6% 1.3% 1.0% 2.0% 0.9%14 crit thinking Total Improved critical thinking skills 46 1.8% 1.2% 1.6% 2.1% 1.5% 4.1% 1.3% 2.0% 2.0% 1.9% 1.4% 1.1% 2.4% 1.7% 1.7%

22 projmgt Total Improved project management skills; learned to work independently

123 4.7% 6.2% 5.1% 2.8% 1.5% 6.2% 4.3% 3.9% 4.7% 5.4% 5.0% 6.0% 3.4% 4.4% 4.7%

39 research Total Gained research skills 104 4.0% 5.8% 4.5% 1.5% 4.4% 2.7% 3.6% 4.0% 2.4% 4.6% 3.2% 4.9% 3.4% 4.0% 3.9%47 disc Total Gained disciplinary knowledge 32 1.2% 1.0% 1.2% 1.0% 2.2% 2.1% 1.5% 1.4% 0.8% 0.9% 1.4% 1.3% 1.0% 1.3% 1.2%52 overall Total Generally learned a lot or grew intellectually 69 2.7% 2.7% 1.2% 3.2% 2.9% 6.8% 1.6% 2.6% 2.0% 3.7% 2.8% 2.4% 2.7% 2.7% 2.6%68 self Total Gained self-understanding or abilities and interests 115 4.4% 6.1% 3.2% 5.0% 1.5% 2.7% 4.1% 4.5% 2.0% 5.1% 5.8% 4.3% 3.7% 4.2% 4.4%

73 behavior Total Developed patience, perseverance, willingness to face challenges 14 0.5% 0.9% 0.5% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.2% 1.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.6%

80 confidence Total Gained self confidence in abilities 33 1.3% 1.4% 1.7% 0.8% 0.0% 0.7% 1.5% 0.8% 1.2% 1.3% 1.4% 1.5% 0.9% 0.8% 1.4%84 motiv Total Became more interested in research or project 15 0.6% 0.3% 0.4% 0.6% 3.7% 0.0% 0.2% 1.1% 1.2% 0.3% 0.2% 1.0% 0.3% 0.4% 0.6%

93 profdevel Total Gained preparation for job, graduate school, or life generally 61 2.4% 3.0% 2.3% 1.8% 2.9% 0.7% 1.9% 3.7% 1.6% 1.9% 1.0% 1.7% 3.3% 2.6% 2.2%

99 research Total Enjoyed, appreciated research experience 51 2.0% 2.5% 1.9% 1.8% 0.7% 1.4% 2.9% 2.0% 0.0% 1.4% 1.6% 2.3% 1.8% 2.6% 1.7%

101 overall Total Capstone experience was enjoyable, great, or generally positive 52 2.0% 2.6% 1.9% 1.7% 1.5% 1.4% 2.3% 1.4% 2.0% 2.0% 2.8% 2.1% 1.5% 2.3% 1.8%

105 projmgt Total Managed project well 41 1.6% 0.9% 2.1% 1.5% 1.5% 1.4% 1.9% 1.6% 1.6% 1.2% 1.2% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.5%

116 freedom Total Student appreciated the freedom to choose topic, direct project, work independently

120 4.6% 3.5% 3.9% 4.3% 16.9% 2.7% 3.1% 6.4% 5.9% 4.1% 4.2% 4.2% 4.9% 4.6% 4.5%

156 mentor Total Mentor was great overall, helpful, supportive, available, interested, gave good feedback

402 15.5% 14.9% 15.5% 15.6% 11.8% 15.1% 16.7% 12.3% 17.0% 15.1% 14.4% 15.0% 15.6% 13.3% 15.8%

173 personal Total Experience was worthwhile, rewarding 120 4.6% 3.9% 3.4% 5.6% 6.6% 7.5% 4.5% 2.8% 4.3% 5.8% 4.6% 4.2% 4.7% 5.5% 4.1%180 project Total Capstone project itself was of good quality or of worth 39 1.5% 1.7% 1.6% 1.4% 0.0% 1.4% 1.9% 0.9% 1.2% 1.6% 2.0% 1.2% 1.4% 1.7% 1.4%

190 organiz Total Capstone process had benefits - able to integrate various interests into project, spread out over multiple terms

39 1.5% 1.4% 0.7% 1.8% 5.9% 0.7% 0.6% 2.6% 2.4% 1.2% 0.4% 1.5% 1.9% 0.8% 1.7%

193 outside Total Fieldwork/travel positive experience 33 1.3% 1.4% 1.4% 0.8% 2.2% 0.7% 1.3% 2.2% 0.0% 0.9% 1.2% 1.3% 1.2% 1.3% 1.2%196 prep Total Preparation for the capstone was helpful 5 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.8% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.3%


74 2.9% 3.2% 2.3% 3.1% 3.7% 2.1% 1.7% 4.4% 0.8% 3.2% 3.4% 2.6% 2.7% 2.0% 3.1%

205 POSITIVE COMMENT SUBTOTAL: 1621 62.5% 67% 58% 58% 71% 62% 60% 61% 55% 64% 60% 63% 60% 60% 61%

Tables: 11 2/22/2012

Part 5, Page: 40

Line Group 2 Description Cnt % NS SS Hum Prof Self Red Tan Wht Yellow L M H M F207

210 comm Total False: Improved writing or communication skills 6 0.2% 0.0% 0.3% 0.3% 0.7% 0.0% 0.3% 0.2% 0.4% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 0.1% 0.3%213 crit thinking Total False: Improved critical thinking skills 3 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1%

217 projmgt Total False: Improved project management skills; learned to work independently

29 1.1% 1.2% 1.2% 0.8% 1.5% 0.7% 1.3% 0.6% 2.0% 1.0% 1.4% 1.1% 0.9% 1.5% 0.9%

219 research Total False: Gained research skills 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%221 confidence Total False: Gained self confidence in abilities 2 0.1% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0%

225 profdevel Total False: Gained preparation for job, graduate school, or life generally 9 0.3% 0.4% 0.3% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.8% 0.4% 0.4% 0.6% 0.1% 0.1% 0.4%

230 research Total False: Enjoyed, appreciated research experience 13 0.5% 0.6% 0.2% 0.8% 0.7% 0.0% 0.7% 0.8% 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.3% 0.7% 0.5% 0.5%

232 overall Total False: Capstone experience was enjoyable, great, or generally positive

2 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%

237 projmgt Total Started late, didn't finish or reach goals 14 0.5% 0.6% 0.4% 0.7% 0.0% 0.7% 0.1% 0.8% 1.2% 0.6% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5%244 freedom Total Unable to choose topic or lacked guidance 38 1.5% 1.7% 0.8% 1.9% 0.0% 2.7% 1.3% 1.4% 1.2% 1.7% 1.6% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 1.5%

288 mentor Total Mentor unhelpful, poor or untimely feedback, unavailable, unorganized, unclear expectations, uninterested

276 10.6% 9.4% 12.2% 10.4% 5.9% 7.5% 10.9% 10.3% 9.5% 10.2% 8.0% 11.8% 10.2% 9.9% 10.6%

306 personal Total Experience was stressful, difficult, disappointing 202 7.8% 6.9% 8.1% 8.3% 2.2% 8.2% 7.9% 5.8% 10.7% 7.8% 10.0% 7.2% 6.9% 7.3% 7.7%

311 project Total False: Capstone project itself was of good quality or of worth 9 0.3% 0.1% 0.3% 0.6% 0.0% 0.7% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4%

313 self Total False: Gained self-understanding or abilities and interests 5 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.4% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.4% 0.1%

319 structural Total Various obstacles to conducting the project were encountered 19 0.7% 1.2% 0.6% 0.3% 1.5% 0.7% 0.7% 0.8% 1.2% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.8% 0.5% 0.8%

326 workload Total Difficulties were encountered balancing the capstone work with other coursework or personal activities

130 5.0% 5.6% 4.7% 4.4% 6.6% 3.4% 5.6% 5.3% 6.7% 3.4% 4.8% 4.5% 5.2% 5.1% 4.8%

349 organiz TotalCapstone guidelines not clear, requirement carries too much weight, time frame or terms to much or too little, capstone class not helpful

121 4.7% 3.3% 4.0% 6.7% 5.9% 2.7% 1.0% 10.1% 4.3% 4.0% 5.6% 4.0% 4.6% 5.5% 4.2%

357 outside Total Outside placements caused problem 15 0.6% 0.3% 0.5% 0.6% 2.9% 0.0% 0.2% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.5% 0.7% 0.8% 0.5%363 prep Total Preparation for the capstone waslacking 23 0.9% 0.6% 1.2% 0.8% 0.0% 0.7% 0.7% 0.2% 2.0% 1.2% 0.8% 1.0% 0.8% 0.3% 1.1%


55 2.1% 1.6% 2.7% 1.9% 0.7% 2.1% 2.1% 1.2% 1.6% 2.8% 2.8% 2.0% 1.9% 1.9% 2.1%

380 NEGATIVE COMMENT SUBTOTAL: 972 37.5% 34% 38% 40% 29% 30% 34% 40% 44% 35% 38% 37% 36% 37% 37%382 Grand Total 2593 100.0% 691 961 720 136 146 860 643 253 901 500 974 1183 744 1913

Tables: 12 2/22/2012

Part 5, Page: 41

Table Q2‐1: Detailed Tally of Responses by Category and Topic To: What did you learn about yourself as a result of your capstone experience? H=>3.50Clarified understanding of: COMBINED DATA FROM 2009 AND 2010 M= 3.00 to 3.49

L=<3.00

Self assessment category: strength (e.g. can do), limitation, or general insight

Major taxonomy category: ability, interest, or personality characteristic

General topic area Sub‐topic area

The responses have been categorized according to the hierarchical structure shown for Groups 1 to 4. Group 1 indicates whether the response related to a perceived strength, limitation or deficiency, or simply a self‐insight. Group 2 categorizes the responses as relating to either an ability, interest or personality characteristic. Groups 3 and 4 indicate the general topic and sub‐topic of the response.

BY MAJOR DIVISION BY SCHOOL GPA GROUP GENDER

Line Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 ID Descriptive Text Total Pct NS SS Hum Prof Self Red Tan Wht Ylw L M H M F1 STRENGTH2 strength 1abilities academic general 344 self-understanding - of own abilities - academic 63 3.7% 20 24 15 1 3 25 6 7 25 11 26 26 19 443 strength 1abilities academic potential 334 that one can develop academically weak areas 1 0.1% 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 14 academic Total General academic abilities: Views self as more academically capable 64 3.7% 20 24 16 1 3 25 6 7 26 11 27 26 19 455 strength 1abilities communication general 360 self-understanding - has strengths as a communicator 14 0.8% 6 1 5 1 1 4 6 3 1 1 6 7 5 96 strength 1abilities communication oral 368 self-understanding - has oral presentation skills 10 0.6% 1 2 3 3 1 2 7 0 1 3 2 5 3 77 strength 1abilities communication oral 580 self-understanding - abilities - oral presentation - when passionate about topic 2 0.1% 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 28 strength 1abilities communication oral 618 that can develop oral presentation skills 3 0.2% 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 29 strength 1abilities communication oral 572 self-understanding - abilities - oral presentation - better than thought 3 0.2% 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 1 0 310 strength 1abilities communication writing 347 self-understanding - has strengths as a writer, can write well 47 2.8% 10 20 12 0 5 22 4 7 14 7 12 28 11 3611 strength 1abilities communication writing 566 self-understanding - of own abilities - writing - critically 2 0.1% 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 212 strength 1abilities communication writing 570 self-understanding - of own abilities - writing - better than thought 31 1.8% 6 10 14 1 0 12 7 6 6 5 11 15 8 2313 strength 1abilities communication writing 589 self-understanding - of own abilities - writing - creatively 4 0.2% 0 1 3 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 2 2 214 strength 1abilities communication writing 332 learned can articulate thoughts 2 0.1% 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 2

15 communication Total Communication skills: Views self as more capable (writing, oral, presentations) 118 6.9% 26 39 41 5 7 45 28 19 26 19 36 63 30 88

16 strength 1abilities critical thinking general 546 self-understanding - of own abilities - CT, can think critically, have own ideas 31 1.8% 9 15 6 0 1 8 5 4 14 10 8 13 7 2417 strength 1abilities critical thinking general 586 self-understanding - of own abilities - CT - better than thought 8 0.5% 1 4 2 1 0 2 2 1 3 4 2 2 4 418 strength 1abilities critical thinking analysis 583 self-understanding - of own abilities - CT - thinking analytically 3 0.2% 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 319 strength 1abilities critical thinking analysis 587 self-understanding - of own abilities - CT - analytical skills - better than thought 8 0.5% 3 3 1 0 1 0 5 0 3 1 4 3 3 520 strength 1abilities critical thinking creativity 555 self-understanding - of own abilities - creativity 10 0.6% 3 1 6 0 0 3 1 3 3 1 1 8 0 1021 strength 1abilities critical thinking indep voice 584 self-understanding - of own abilities - CT - can and should think independently 6 0.4% 1 0 3 1 0 1 2 1 2 1 3 2 1 522 strength 1abilities critical thinking perspective 564 self-understanding - of own abilities - CT - can think from multiple perspectives 2 0.1% 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 123 strength 1abilities critical thinking quickness 565 self-understanding - of own abilities - CT - can think quickly 1 0.1% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 024 strength 1abilities critical thinking synthesis 585 self-understanding - of own abilities - CT - synthesizing 12 0.7% 3 3 3 1 2 2 1 3 6 1 6 5 4 825 strength 1abilities critical thinking synthesis 574 self-understanding - of own abilities - CT - synthesizing - better than thought 1 0.1% 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 126 critical thinking Total Critical thinking skills: Views self as more capable 82 4.8% 21 30 22 4 4 18 18 12 34 18 26 38 21 6127 strength 1abilities interpersonal collab 611 self-understanding - of own abilities - collaborates well with mentor 1 0.1% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 128 strength 1abilities interpersonal collab 607 self-understanding - of own abilities - receiving criticism 3 0.2% 1 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 329 strength 1abilities interpersonal collab 609 self-understanding - of own abilities - ok to seek help from others 10 0.6% 0 8 2 0 0 5 2 1 2 2 3 5 0 1030 strength 1abilities interpersonal collab 99 collaboration skills - general 8 0.5% 1 5 2 0 0 3 2 0 3 1 4 3 1 731 strength 1abilities interpersonal assertive 573 self-understanding - disposition - assertiveness 4 0.2% 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 4 0 3 132 strength 1abilities interpersonal outgoing 579 self-understanding - disposition - outgoing - more than thought 1 0.1% 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 133 strength 1abilities interpersonal leadership 594 self-understanding - of own abilities - has leadership skills 7 0.4% 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 0 3 4 3 4

34 interpersonal Total Interpersonal skills: Views self as having interpersonal/collaboration skills 34 2.0% 6 17 8 2 1 13 7 5 9 5 14 15 7 27

35 strength 1abilities potential confidence 156 learned to be more confident in themselves 44 2.6% 12 17 14 0 1 8 6 6 24 9 14 21 10 3436 strength 1abilities potential confidence 575 self-understanding - of own abilities - can do more than had thought 47 2.8% 13 9 20 3 2 17 12 2 16 12 12 23 7 40

37 strength 1abilities potential confidence 597 self-understanding - of own abilities - can make a difference in community / world 6 0.4% 0 2 2 2 0 1 5 0 0 0 4 2 1 5

38 strength 1abilities potential confidence 623 self-understanding - disposition - brave 1 0.1% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 139 strength 1abilities potential confidence 569 self-understanding - disposition - can achieve something if set mind to it 43 2.5% 14 17 8 3 1 21 7 1 14 15 14 14 16 2740 strength 1abilities potential confidence 578 self-understanding - disposition - strong - more than thought 4 0.2% 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 2 2 1 1 1 341 strength 1abilities potential confidence 593 self-understanding - disposition - confidence - improved 5 0.3% 2 0 2 1 0 0 4 0 1 1 1 3 1 442 strength 1abilities potential confidence 111 self-understanding - of own abilities, strengths, potential 38 2.2% 12 12 11 2 1 13 6 1 18 5 13 20 15 2343 potential Total Personal potential: Views self as having greater achievement potential 188 11.0% 54 59 58 11 6 62 41 10 75 44 60 84 51 13744 strength 1abilities proj mgt indep 563 self-understanding - of own abilities - can work independently 49 2.9% 19 18 7 0 4 14 4 4 27 9 23 17 12 3745 strength 1abilities proj mgt indep 588 self-understanding - of own abilities - work independently - better than thought 7 0.4% 2 5 0 0 0 4 2 1 0 1 5 1 4 3

2/22/2012

Part 5, Page: 42

Line Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 ID Descriptive Text Total Pct NS SS Hum Prof Self Red Tan Wht Ylw L M H M F46 strength 1abilities proj mgt major proj 549 self-understanding - of own abilities - can manage, complete major project 157 9.2% 23 73 45 5 11 60 29 17 51 45 53 59 50 107

47 strength 1abilities proj mgt major proj 550 self-understanding - of own abilities - complete major project - can do by breaking down into smaller tasks 13 0.8% 5 3 4 1 0 9 3 0 1 2 3 8 2 11

48 strength 1abilities proj mgt multiple persp 553 self-understanding - of own abilities - learned how to or that can manage multiple projects 9 0.5% 1 2 5 1 0 2 4 1 2 3 0 6 1 8

49 strength 1abilities proj mgt organize/plan 590 self-understanding - of own abilities - can set, achieve own goals 19 1.1% 3 9 7 0 0 5 6 1 7 4 8 7 9 1050 strength 1abilities proj mgt organize/plan 554 self-understanding - of own abilities - can plan, organize 20 1.2% 4 8 6 1 1 8 2 4 6 3 6 11 4 1651 strength 1abilities proj mgt patience/persiste 155 learned patience necessary for research 3 0.2% 2 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 352 strength 1abilities proj mgt patience/persiste 166 learned can persist 26 1.5% 15 8 3 0 0 8 4 1 13 2 9 15 9 1753 strength 1abilities proj mgt patience/persiste 616 self-understanding - of own abilities - resourcefulness 1 0.1% 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 154 strength 1abilities proj mgt patience/persiste 617 self-understanding - of own abilities - getting things done 17 1.0% 4 8 4 0 1 10 3 0 4 4 6 7 6 1155 strength 1abilities proj mgt stress mgt 154 learned to manage stress, pressure, ambiguity; that they can do it 30 1.8% 6 10 12 0 2 9 6 4 11 3 13 14 8 2256 strength 1abilities proj mgt time mgt 542 self-understanding - of own abilities - time management, can manage 75 4.4% 9 24 29 5 8 21 16 11 27 13 26 36 21 54

57 proj mgt Total Project management skills: Views self as having good project management skills 426 24.9% 94 169 122 13 27 152 81 44 149 89 154 183 126 300

58 strength 1abilities reflection general 168 self reflection 2 0.1% 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 259 reflection Total Reflection skills: Views self as more capable of doing self-reflection 2 0.1% 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 260 strength 1abilities research general 571 self-understanding - of own abilities - research - better than thought 29 1.7% 11 8 6 3 1 7 12 0 10 3 10 16 8 2161 strength 1abilities research confidence 349 self-understanding - can do research, more confident of research abilities 52 3.0% 15 21 4 5 7 15 14 3 20 5 26 21 13 3962 strength 1abilities research data 562 self-understanding - of own abilities - research - data analysis 7 0.4% 3 3 0 1 0 5 1 1 0 0 2 5 3 463 strength 1abilities research data 567 self-understanding - of own abilities - research - interpret data 1 0.1% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 164 strength 1abilities research data 568 self-understanding - of own abilities - research - collect data 3 0.2% 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 2 165 strength 1abilities research data 596 self-understanding - of own abilities - research - fieldwork 5 0.3% 2 3 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 2 1 2 2 366 strength 1abilities research design 551 self-understanding - of own abilities - research - capable of designing project 7 0.4% 2 4 1 0 0 2 1 0 4 3 0 4 3 467 strength 1abilities research independence 563 self-understanding - of own abilities - can work independently 49 2.9% 19 18 7 0 4 14 4 4 27 9 23 17 12 3768 strength 1abilities research presenting 595 self-understanding - of own abilities - research - able to defend 2 0.1% 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 169 research Total Research skills: Views self as more capable of doing research 155 9.1% 54 58 20 10 12 46 35 10 64 24 66 65 44 11170 strength 3 personality work ethic motivation 605 self-understanding - disposition - is motivated - more than thought 7 0.4% 2 4 0 1 0 2 1 0 4 1 3 3 2 571 strength 3 personality work ethic motivation 604 self-understanding - disposition - is motivated / could motivate self 21 1.2% 7 9 3 0 2 12 4 1 4 5 8 8 5 1673 strength 3 personality work ethic perseverance 608 self-understanding - disposition - tolerance of obstacles, risk, failure, ambiguity 8 0.5% 1 4 3 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 4 4 0 874 strength 3 personality work ethic perseverance 610 self-understanding - disposition - patience - more than thought 2 0.1% 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 275 strength 3 personality work ethic perseverance 582 self-understanding - disposition - has perseverance 19 1.1% 6 6 3 1 3 5 2 3 9 5 8 6 10 976 strength 3 personality work ethic perseverance 576 self-understanding - disposition - perseverance - more persistent than had thought 6 0.4% 2 4 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 3 3 0 678 strength 3 personality work ethic work ethic 547 self-understanding - disposition - good work ethic, is or can be hard worker 27 1.6% 7 7 8 1 4 12 3 1 11 3 12 12 7 2079 strength 3 personality work ethic work ethic 577 self-understanding - disposition - good work ethic - better than thought 4 0.2% 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 0 3 1 3

80 work ethic Total Work ethic: Views self as having strong work ethic, highly motivated, more perseverance, patient, tolerant of obstacles

94 5.5% 29 34 19 3 9 38 11 11 34 15 39 40 25 69

81 82 STRENGTH SUBTOTAL: 1163 68.1% 304 430 306 51 69 399 229 118 417 225 422 516 323 84083 84 LIMITATION85 limitation 1abilities general limits 112 self-understanding - of own limitations, weaknesses 26 1.5% 10 9 7 0 0 7 10 0 9 3 7 16 12 1486 limitation 1abilities general limits 113 self-understanding - of lack of quality in performance / mistakes - general 4 0.2% 0 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 3 2 287 general Total General limitations: New understanding of limitations, weaknesses, in general 30 1.8% 10 11 9 0 0 9 10 0 11 4 7 19 14 1688 limitation 1abilities academic limits 556 self-understanding - of own limitations - academic 5 0.3% 5 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 1 2 2 2 389 academic Total General academic limitations: new understanding of academic weaknesses 5 0.3% 5 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 1 2 2 2 390 limitation 1abilities communication oral 602 self-understanding - of own limitations - communication 8 0.5% 2 4 2 0 0 1 3 1 3 3 4 1 4 491 limitation 1abilities communication writing 114 self-understanding - of lack of quality in performance - writing 5 0.3% 0 2 2 0 1 1 1 0 3 0 3 2 2 392 limitation 1abilities communication writing 545 learned they should do multiple revisions 3 0.2% 1 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 1 1 293 limitation 1abilities communication writing 591 learned importance of setting and sticking to goals 3 0.2% 1 0 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 1 1 294 limitation 1abilities communication writing 619 learned importance of seeing big picture 1 0.1% 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 195 limitation 1abilities communication writing 541 self-understanding - of own limitations - has writing deficiencies 8 0.5% 2 5 1 0 0 3 1 0 4 4 1 3 1 796 communication Total Communication skills: New understanding of limitations, weaknesses 28 1.6% 7 11 8 1 1 6 9 2 11 7 13 8 9 19

97 limitation 1abilities proj mgt indep 612 self-understanding - of own limitations - project management - working independently / indep research 3 0.2% 2 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 0 0 3 0

98 limitation 1abilities proj mgt organize/plan 552 self-understanding - of lack of quality in performance - project management, needs to plan, organize better 12 0.7% 4 3 5 0 0 2 4 1 5 5 1 6 4 8

99 limitation 1abilities proj mgt organize/plan 599 self-understanding - project management style - needs deadlines / structure / guidance 15 0.9% 1 6 4 1 3 4 2 3 6 3 4 8 4 11

100 limitation 1abilities proj mgt organize/plan 137 learned importance of planning 3 0.2% 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 3

2/22/2012

Part 5, Page: 43

Line Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 ID Descriptive Text Total Pct NS SS Hum Prof Self Red Tan Wht Ylw L M H M F101 limitation 1abilities proj mgt time mgt 346 self-understanding - needs to improve time management skills 61 3.6% 17 20 20 2 2 23 9 7 22 27 16 18 23 38

102 limitation 1abilities proj mgt time mgt 543 learned they should pay attention to time management, organization when doing a project 10 0.6% 2 4 2 2 0 2 2 4 2 3 5 2 6 4

103 proj mgt Total Project management skills: New understanding of limitations, weaknesses 104 6.1% 28 35 31 5 5 33 19 16 36 41 28 35 40 64104 limitation 1abilities research general 540 self-understanding - of own limitations - not good at research 2 0.1% 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 2105 research Total Research skills: New understanding of limitations, weaknesses 2 0.1% 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 2106 limitation 3 personality confidence lacking 592 self-understanding - disposition - confidence - needs to improve 8 0.5% 2 3 2 0 1 0 0 1 7 1 4 3 1 7107 limitation 3 personality confidence lacking 622 self-understanding - disposition - is afraid to succeed 1 0.1% 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1108 confidence Total Confidence: New understanding of limitations, weaknesses 9 0.5% 2 3 3 0 1 0 0 1 8 2 4 3 1 8109 limitation 3 personality work ethic motivation 624 self-understanding - disposition - too emotionally involved in project 1 0.1% 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0110 limitation 3 personality work ethic motivation 606 self-understanding - disposition - is not motivated 4 0.2% 2 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 1 2 1 1 2 2112 limitation 3 personality work ethic perseverance 603 self-understanding - of own limitations - perseverance 2 0.1% 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 2114 limitation 3 personality work ethic work ethic 598 self-understanding - of lack of quality in performance - work ethic 5 0.3% 2 2 1 0 0 3 1 0 1 1 2 2 1 4115 limitation 3 personality work ethic work ethic 135 learned they need to work hard, persist to be successful 7 0.4% 4 1 2 0 0 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 4116 work ethic Total Work ethic: New understanding of limitations, weaknesses 19 1.1% 10 4 5 0 0 9 3 3 4 6 6 7 7 12117 118 LIMITATION SUBTOTAL: 197 11.5% 62 66 56 6 7 60 42 22 73 62 61 74 73 124119 120 INSIGHT121 insight 1abilities academic learning style 117 self-understanding - of learning style 15 0.9% 7 2 3 2 1 6 6 1 2 3 6 6 5 10122 academic Total General academic interests: clarified 15 0.9% 7 2 3 2 1 6 6 1 2 3 6 6 5 10123 insight 1abilities communication writing 615 self-understanding - writing style 10 0.6% 0 4 6 0 0 6 3 0 1 1 3 6 1 9124 communication Total Communication skills: Gained insight about writing style 10 0.6% 0 4 6 0 0 6 3 0 1 1 3 6 1 9125 insight 1abilities critical thinking indep voice 6110 need to think independently but value other opinions 1 0.1% 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1126 critical thinking Total Critical thinking skills: Learned need to value other's opinions 1 0.1% 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1127 insight 1abilities proj mgt style 557 self-understanding - project management style 7 0.4% 3 1 3 0 0 2 2 1 2 1 3 3 2 5128 proj mgt Total Project management skills: Understands own project management style better 7 0.4% 3 1 3 0 0 2 2 1 2 1 3 3 2 5129 insight 2 interests academic general 560 self-understanding - of interests - academic 32 1.9% 4 16 11 0 1 17 7 4 4 5 9 18 4 28130 insight 2 interests academic value 120 learned can apply topic to own life 3 0.2% 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 3131 insight 2 interests academic value 130 learned they appreciate a college education 4 0.2% 2 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 1 0 2 2 0 4132 insight 2 interests academic value 132 learned they value creativity 1 0.1% 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1133 academic Total General academic interests: clarified 40 2.3% 6 17 15 1 1 19 11 5 5 5 12 23 4 36

134 insight 2 interests career chg field 529 self-understanding - career clarification - decided should change to a different field 12 0.7% 2 4 5 1 0 5 3 1 3 3 5 4 6 6

135 insight 2 interests career chg focus 532 self-understanding - career clarification - different direction, area 7 0.4% 3 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 5 1 2 4 1 6136 insight 2 interests career chg to non-acad 533 self-understanding - career clarification - different direction, outside academia 5 0.3% 0 3 2 0 0 2 0 1 2 1 2 2 1 4

137 insight 2 interests career chg to non-resea 537 self-understanding - career clarification - does not want to do independent research 14 0.8% 5 5 1 2 1 1 4 0 9 1 6 7 3 11

138 insight 2 interests career chg to teaching 539 self-understanding - career clarification - likes teaching, can teach 8 0.5% 1 1 2 4 0 0 6 0 2 0 6 2 0 8139 insight 2 interests career clarified 621 learned ready for career choice 7 0.4% 1 1 2 3 0 1 6 0 0 0 4 3 2 5140 insight 2 interests career clarified 559 self-understanding - career clarification - likes working with others 9 0.5% 3 3 2 1 0 1 4 0 4 0 3 6 1 8141 insight 2 interests career clarified 115 self-understanding - clarification of career and life interests 66 3.9% 19 16 21 7 3 19 27 3 17 9 22 35 24 42142 insight 2 interests career clarified 492 learned enjoyed doing interviews 2 0.1% 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1143 insight 2 interests career clarified 601 learned importance of contributing to community 3 0.2% 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 2 1 2144 career Total Career interests: clarified 133 7.8% 36 37 38 18 4 30 55 5 43 16 51 66 40 93145 insight 2 interests grad school moved away 600 self-understanding - career clarification - not ready for grad school 6 0.4% 1 3 2 0 0 3 0 2 1 1 3 2 3 3146 insight 2 interests grad school moved toward 558 self-understanding - career clarification - likes academia 1 0.1% 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1

147 insight 2 interests grad school moved toward 530 self-understanding - career clarification - decided to go to grad school or confirmed decision 13 0.8% 6 1 3 0 3 4 4 0 5 2 4 7 7 6

148 grad school Total Graduate school interests: Clarified or confirmed 20 1.2% 7 4 5 0 4 7 4 2 7 3 7 10 10 10149 insight 2 interests major field change 531 self-understanding - career clarification - different focus within same field 7 0.4% 1 2 2 2 0 0 5 1 1 1 3 3 1 6150 insight 2 interests major field retain 534 self-understanding - career clarification - confirmed current direction, field 20 1.2% 2 4 8 4 2 2 9 2 7 3 8 9 3 17

151 major field Total Academic field: Clarified or confirmed interests in or within current academic field 27 1.6% 3 6 10 6 2 2 14 3 8 4 11 12 4 23

152 insight 2 interests non-academic faith values 620 self-understanding - interest clarification - importance of own faith values 9 0.5% 0 3 6 0 0 5 4 0 0 2 2 5 2 7153 non-academic Total Faith values: clarified importance of own faith values 9 0.5% 0 3 6 0 0 5 4 0 0 2 2 5 2 7154 insight 2 interests oral comm enjoys 613 self-understanding - interest clarification - presenting 1 0.1% 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1155 oral comm Total Presentations: learned enjoys presenting 1 0.1% 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1156 insight 2 interests research enjoys 614 learned found doing own work exciting, motivating 4 0.2% 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 3 1 3157 insight 2 interests research enjoys 538 self-understanding - career clarification - enjoys, loves research 32 1.9% 6 9 9 2 6 11 7 1 13 3 8 21 4 28

2/22/2012

Part 5, Page: 44

Line Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 ID Descriptive Text Total Pct NS SS Hum Prof Self Red Tan Wht Ylw L M H M F158 research Total Research skills: Learned enjoys research 36 2.1% 6 11 10 3 6 11 8 2 15 4 8 24 5 31159 insight 2 interests writing dislikes 535 self-understanding - interest clarification - does not like writing papers 5 0.3% 0 2 3 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 0 5160 insight 2 interests writing likes 581 self-understanding - interest clarification - writing 3 0.2% 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 2161 writing Total Writing: Clarified interest in writing 8 0.5% 0 3 4 0 1 3 2 1 2 1 4 3 1 7162 insight 3 personality general general 110 self-understanding - personality, character 14 0.8% 4 1 9 0 0 4 6 0 4 3 4 7 6 8163 general Total Personality: clarified understanding of own personality, character 14 0.8% 4 1 9 0 0 4 6 0 4 3 4 7 6 8164 insight 3 personality work ethic clarified 561 self-understanding - understands own work ethic better 2 0.1% 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2165 work ethic Total Work ethic: Understands own work ethic better 2 0.1% 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2166 167 INSIGHTS SUBTOTAL: 323 18.9% 72 90 111 31 19 97 117 20 89 45 113 165 80 243168 169 x-nothing Total 185 Nothing: Little or nothing learned about self during capstone 25 1.5% 2 11 11 1 0 4 7 9 5 3 11 11 10 15170 NOTHING SUBTOTAL: 25 1.5% 2 11 11 1 0 4 7 9 5 3 11 11 10 15171 172 Grand Total Grand total: 1708 100.0% 440 597 484 89 95 560 395 169 584 335 607 766 486 ###

2/22/2012

Part 5, Page: 45

Table Q2‐2: Summary Tally of Responses by Category and Topic To: What did you learn about yourself as a result of your capstone experience? H=>3.50Clarified understanding of: M= 3.00 to 3.49

L=<3.00


General topic area Sub‐topic area

Group 1 indicates whether the response related to a perceived strength, limitation or deficiency, or simply a self‐insight. Group 3 indicates the general topic area of the response.


Line Group 1 Group 3 Group 4 Descriptive Text Total Pct NS SS Hum Prof Self Red Tan Wht Ylw L M H M F1 STRENGTH2 strength academic general self-understanding - of own abilities - academic 63 3.7% 20 24 15 1 3 25 6 7 25 11 26 26 19 443 strength academic potential that one can develop academically weak areas 1 0.1% 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 14 academic Total General academic abilities: Views self as more academically capable 64 3.7% 20 24 16 1 3 25 6 7 26 11 27 26 19 455 strength communication general self-understanding - has strengths as a communicator 14 0.8% 6 1 5 1 1 4 6 3 1 1 6 7 5 96 strength communication oral self-understanding - has oral presentation skills 10 0.6% 1 2 3 3 1 2 7 0 1 3 2 5 3 77 strength communication oral self-understanding - abilities - oral presentation - when passionate about topic 2 0.1% 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 28 strength communication oral that can develop oral presentation skills 3 0.2% 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 29 strength communication oral self-understanding - abilities - oral presentation - better than thought 3 0.2% 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 1 0 310 strength communication writing self-understanding - has strengths as a writer, can write well 47 2.8% 10 20 12 0 5 22 4 7 14 7 12 28 11 3611 strength communication writing self-understanding - of own abilities - writing - critically 2 0.1% 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 212 strength communication writing self-understanding - of own abilities - writing - better than thought 31 1.8% 6 10 14 1 0 12 7 6 6 5 11 15 8 2313 strength communication writing self-understanding - of own abilities - writing - creatively 4 0.2% 0 1 3 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 2 2 214 strength communication writing learned can articulate thoughts 2 0.1% 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 215 communication Total Communication skills: Views self as more capable (writing, oral, presentations) 118 6.9% 26 39 41 5 7 45 28 19 26 19 36 63 30 8816 strength critical thinking general self-understanding - of own abilities - CT, can think critically, have own ideas 31 1.8% 9 15 6 0 1 8 5 4 14 10 8 13 7 2417 strength critical thinking general self-understanding - of own abilities - CT - better than thought 8 0.5% 1 4 2 1 0 2 2 1 3 4 2 2 4 418 strength critical thinking analysis self-understanding - of own abilities - CT - thinking analytically 3 0.2% 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 319 strength critical thinking analysis self-understanding - of own abilities - CT - analytical skills - better than thought 8 0.5% 3 3 1 0 1 0 5 0 3 1 4 3 3 520 strength critical thinking creativity self-understanding - of own abilities - creativity 10 0.6% 3 1 6 0 0 3 1 3 3 1 1 8 0 1021 strength critical thinking indep voice self-understanding - of own abilities - CT - can and should think independently 6 0.4% 1 0 3 1 0 1 2 1 2 1 3 2 1 522 strength critical thinking perspective self-understanding - of own abilities - CT - can think from multiple perspectives 2 0.1% 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 123 strength critical thinking quickness self-understanding - of own abilities - CT - can think quickly 1 0.1% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 024 strength critical thinking synthesis self-understanding - of own abilities - CT - synthesizing 12 0.7% 3 3 3 1 2 2 1 3 6 1 6 5 4 825 strength critical thinking synthesis self-understanding - of own abilities - CT - synthesizing - better than thought 1 0.1% 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 126 critical thinking Total Critical thinking skills: Views self as more capable 82 4.8% 21 30 22 4 4 18 18 12 34 18 26 38 21 6127 strength interpersonal collab self-understanding - of own abilities - collaborates well with mentor 1 0.1% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 128 strength interpersonal collab self-understanding - of own abilities - receiving criticism 3 0.2% 1 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 329 strength interpersonal collab self-understanding - of own abilities - ok to seek help from others 10 0.6% 0 8 2 0 0 5 2 1 2 2 3 5 0 1030 strength interpersonal collab collaboration skills - general 8 0.5% 1 5 2 0 0 3 2 0 3 1 4 3 1 731 strength interpersonal assertive self-understanding - disposition - assertiveness 4 0.2% 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 4 0 3 132 strength interpersonal outgoing self-understanding - disposition - outgoing - more than thought 1 0.1% 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 133 strength interpersonal leadership self-understanding - of own abilities - has leadership skills 7 0.4% 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 0 3 4 3 434 interpersonal Total Interpersonal skills: Views self as having interpersonal/collaboration skills 34 2.0% 6 17 8 2 1 13 7 5 9 5 14 15 7 2735 strength potential confidence learned to be more confident in themselves 44 2.6% 12 17 14 0 1 8 6 6 24 9 14 21 10 3436 strength potential confidence self-understanding - of own abilities - can do more than had thought 47 2.8% 13 9 20 3 2 17 12 2 16 12 12 23 7 4037 strength potential confidence self-understanding - of own abilities - can make a difference in community / world 6 0.4% 0 2 2 2 0 1 5 0 0 0 4 2 1 538 strength potential confidence self-understanding - disposition - brave 1 0.1% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 139 strength potential confidence self-understanding - disposition - can achieve something if set mind to it 43 2.5% 14 17 8 3 1 21 7 1 14 15 14 14 16 2740 strength potential confidence self-understanding - disposition - strong - more than thought 4 0.2% 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 2 2 1 1 1 341 strength potential confidence self-understanding - disposition - confidence - improved 5 0.3% 2 0 2 1 0 0 4 0 1 1 1 3 1 442 strength potential confidence self-understanding - of own abilities, strengths, potential 38 2.2% 12 12 11 2 1 13 6 1 18 5 13 20 15 2343 potential Total Personal potential: Views self as having greater achievement potential 188 11.0% 54 59 58 11 6 62 41 10 75 44 60 84 51 13744 strength proj mgt indep self-understanding - of own abilities - can work independently 49 2.9% 19 18 7 0 4 14 4 4 27 9 23 17 12 3745 strength proj mgt indep self-understanding - of own abilities - work independently - better than thought 7 0.4% 2 5 0 0 0 4 2 1 0 1 5 1 4 346 strength proj mgt major proj self-understanding - of own abilities - can manage, complete major project 157 9.2% 23 73 45 5 11 60 29 17 51 45 53 59 50 107

2/22/2012

Part 5, Page: 46

Line Group 1 Group 3 Group 4 Descriptive Text Total Pct NS SS Hum Prof Self Red Tan Wht Ylw L M H M F

47 strength proj mgt major proj self-understanding - of own abilities - complete major project - can do by breaking down into smaller tasks 13 0.8% 5 3 4 1 0 9 3 0 1 2 3 8 2 11

48 strength proj mgt multiple persp self-understanding - of own abilities - learned how to or that can manage multiple projects 9 0.5% 1 2 5 1 0 2 4 1 2 3 0 6 1 8

49 strength proj mgt organize/plan self-understanding - of own abilities - can set, achieve own goals 19 1.1% 3 9 7 0 0 5 6 1 7 4 8 7 9 1050 strength proj mgt organize/plan self-understanding - of own abilities - can plan, organize 20 1.2% 4 8 6 1 1 8 2 4 6 3 6 11 4 1651 strength proj mgt patience/persist learned patience necessary for research 3 0.2% 2 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 352 strength proj mgt patience/persist learned can persist 26 1.5% 15 8 3 0 0 8 4 1 13 2 9 15 9 1753 strength proj mgt patience/persistself-understanding - of own abilities - resourcefulness 1 0.1% 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 154 strength proj mgt patience/persistself-understanding - of own abilities - getting things done 17 1.0% 4 8 4 0 1 10 3 0 4 4 6 7 6 1155 strength proj mgt stress mgt learned to manage stress, pressure, ambiguity; that they can do it 30 1.8% 6 10 12 0 2 9 6 4 11 3 13 14 8 2256 strength proj mgt time mgt self-understanding - of own abilities - time management, can manage 75 4.4% 9 24 29 5 8 21 16 11 27 13 26 36 21 5457 proj mgt Total Project management skills: Views self as having good project management skills 426 24.9% 94 169 122 13 27 152 81 44 149 89 154 183 126 30058 strength reflection general self reflection 2 0.1% 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 259 reflection Total Reflection skills: Views self as more capable of doing self-reflection 2 0.1% 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 260 strength research general self-understanding - of own abilities - research - better than thought 29 1.7% 11 8 6 3 1 7 12 0 10 3 10 16 8 2161 strength research confidence self-understanding - can do research, more confident of research abilities 52 3.0% 15 21 4 5 7 15 14 3 20 5 26 21 13 3962 strength research data self-understanding - of own abilities - research - data analysis 7 0.4% 3 3 0 1 0 5 1 1 0 0 2 5 3 463 strength research data self-understanding - of own abilities - research - interpret data 1 0.1% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 164 strength research data self-understanding - of own abilities - research - collect data 3 0.2% 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 2 165 strength research data self-understanding - of own abilities - research - fieldwork 5 0.3% 2 3 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 2 1 2 2 366 strength research design self-understanding - of own abilities - research - capable of designing project 7 0.4% 2 4 1 0 0 2 1 0 4 3 0 4 3 467 strength research independence self-understanding - of own abilities - can work independently 49 2.9% 19 18 7 0 4 14 4 4 27 9 23 17 12 3768 strength research presenting self-understanding - of own abilities - research - able to defend 2 0.1% 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 169 research Total Research skills: Views self as more capable of doing research 155 9.1% 54 58 20 10 12 46 35 10 64 24 66 65 44 11170 strength work ethic motivation self-understanding - disposition - is motivated - more than thought 7 0.4% 2 4 0 1 0 2 1 0 4 1 3 3 2 571 strength work ethic motivation self-understanding - disposition - is motivated / could motivate self 21 1.2% 7 9 3 0 2 12 4 1 4 5 8 8 5 1673 strength work ethic perseverance self-understanding - disposition - tolerance of obstacles, risk, failure, ambiguity 8 0.5% 1 4 3 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 4 4 0 874 strength work ethic perseverance self-understanding - disposition - patience - more than thought 2 0.1% 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 275 strength work ethic perseverance self-understanding - disposition - has perseverance 19 1.1% 6 6 3 1 3 5 2 3 9 5 8 6 10 976 strength work ethic perseverance self-understanding - disposition - perseverance - more persistent than had thought 6 0.4% 2 4 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 3 3 0 678 strength work ethic work ethic self-understanding - disposition - good work ethic, is or can be hard worker 27 1.6% 7 7 8 1 4 12 3 1 11 3 12 12 7 2079 strength work ethic work ethic self-understanding - disposition - good work ethic - better than thought 4 0.2% 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 0 3 1 3

80 work ethic Total Work ethic: Views self as having strong work ethic, highly motivated, more perseverance, patient, tolerant of obstacles 94 5.5% 29 34 19 3 9 38 11 11 34 15 39 40 25 69

81 82 STRENGTH SUBTOTAL: 1163 68% 304 430 306 51 69 399 229 118 417 225 422 516 323 84083

84 LIMITATION85 limitation general limits self-understanding - of own limitations, weaknesses 26 1.5% 10 9 7 0 0 7 10 0 9 3 7 16 12 1486 limitation general limits self-understanding - of lack of quality in performance / mistakes - general 4 0.2% 0 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 3 2 287 general Total General limitations: New understanding of limitations, weaknesses, in general 30 1.8% 10 11 9 0 0 9 10 0 11 4 7 19 14 1688 limitation academic limits self-understanding - of own limitations - academic 5 0.3% 5 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 1 2 2 2 389 academic Total General academic limitations: new understanding of academic weaknesses 5 0.3% 5 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 1 2 2 2 390 limitation communication oral self-understanding - of own limitations - communication 8 0.5% 2 4 2 0 0 1 3 1 3 3 4 1 4 491 limitation communication writing self-understanding - of lack of quality in performance - writing 5 0.3% 0 2 2 0 1 1 1 0 3 0 3 2 2 392 limitation communication writing learned they should do multiple revisions 3 0.2% 1 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 1 1 293 limitation communication writing learned importance of setting and sticking to goals 3 0.2% 1 0 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 1 1 294 limitation communication writing learned importance of seeing big picture 1 0.1% 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 195 limitation communication writing self-understanding - of own limitations - has writing deficiencies 8 0.5% 2 5 1 0 0 3 1 0 4 4 1 3 1 796 communication Total Communication skills: New understanding of limitations, weaknesses 28 1.6% 7 11 8 1 1 6 9 2 11 7 13 8 9 19

97 limitation proj mgt indep self-understanding - of own limitations - project management - working independently / indep research 3 0.2% 2 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 0 0 3 0

98 limitation proj mgt organize/plan self-understanding - of lack of quality in performance - project management, needs to plan, i b tt

12 0.7% 4 3 5 0 0 2 4 1 5 5 1 6 4 8

99 limitation proj mgt organize/plan self-understanding - project management style - needs deadlines / structure / guidance 15 0.9% 1 6 4 1 3 4 2 3 6 3 4 8 4 11

100 limitation proj mgt organize/plan learned importance of planning 3 0.2% 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 3101 limitation proj mgt time mgt self-understanding - needs to improve time management skills 61 3.6% 17 20 20 2 2 23 9 7 22 27 16 18 23 38

2/22/2012

Part 5, Page: 47

Line Group 1 Group 3 Group 4 Descriptive Text Total Pct NS SS Hum Prof Self Red Tan Wht Ylw L M H M F

102 limitation proj mgt time mgt learned they should pay attention to time management, organization when doing a project 10 0.6% 2 4 2 2 0 2 2 4 2 3 5 2 6 4

103 proj mgt Total Project management skills: New understanding of limitations, weaknesses 104 6.1% 28 35 31 5 5 33 19 16 36 41 28 35 40 64104 limitation research general self-understanding - of own limitations - not good at research 2 0.1% 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 2105 research Total Research skills: New understanding of limitations, weaknesses 2 0.1% 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 2106 limitation confidence lacking self-understanding - disposition - confidence - needs to improve 8 0.5% 2 3 2 0 1 0 0 1 7 1 4 3 1 7107 limitation confidence lacking self-understanding - disposition - is afraid to succeed 1 0.1% 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1108 confidence Total Confidence: New understanding of limitations, weaknesses 9 0.5% 2 3 3 0 1 0 0 1 8 2 4 3 1 8109 limitation work ethic motivation self-understanding - disposition - too emotionally involved in project 1 0.1% 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0110 limitation work ethic motivation self-understanding - disposition - is not motivated 4 0.2% 2 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 1 2 1 1 2 2112 limitation work ethic perseverance self-understanding - of own limitations - perseverance 2 0.1% 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 2114 limitation work ethic work ethic self-understanding - of lack of quality in performance - work ethic 5 0.3% 2 2 1 0 0 3 1 0 1 1 2 2 1 4115 limitation work ethic work ethic learned they need to work hard, persist to be successful 7 0.4% 4 1 2 0 0 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 4116 work ethic Total Work ethic: New understanding of limitations, weaknesses 19 1.1% 10 4 5 0 0 9 3 3 4 6 6 7 7 12117 118 LIMITATION SUBTOTAL: 197 11.5% 62 66 56 6 7 60 42 22 73 62 61 74 73 124119 120 INSIGHT121 insight academic learning style self-understanding - of learning style 15 0.9% 7 2 3 2 1 6 6 1 2 3 6 6 5 10122 academic Total General academic interests: clarified 15 0.9% 7 2 3 2 1 6 6 1 2 3 6 6 5 10123 insight communication writing self-understanding - writing style 10 0.6% 0 4 6 0 0 6 3 0 1 1 3 6 1 9124 communication Total Communication skills: Gained insight about writing style 10 0.6% 0 4 6 0 0 6 3 0 1 1 3 6 1 9125 insight critical thinking indep voice need to think independently but value other opinions 1 0.1% 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1126 critical thinking Total Critical thinking skills: Learned need to value other's opinions 1 0.1% 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1127 insight proj mgt style self-understanding - project management style 7 0.4% 3 1 3 0 0 2 2 1 2 1 3 3 2 5128 proj mgt Total Project management skills: Understands own project management style better 7 0.4% 3 1 3 0 0 2 2 1 2 1 3 3 2 5129 insight academic general self-understanding - of interests - academic 32 1.9% 4 16 11 0 1 17 7 4 4 5 9 18 4 28130 insight academic value learned can apply topic to own life 3 0.2% 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 3131 insight academic value learned they appreciate a college education 4 0.2% 2 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 1 0 2 2 0 4132 insight academic value learned they value creativity 1 0.1% 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1133 academic Total General academic interests: clarified 40 2.3% 6 17 15 1 1 19 11 5 5 5 12 23 4 36134 insight career chg field self-understanding - career clarification - decided should change to a different field 12 0.7% 2 4 5 1 0 5 3 1 3 3 5 4 6 6135 insight career chg focus self-understanding - career clarification - different direction, area 7 0.4% 3 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 5 1 2 4 1 6136 insight career chg to non-acadself-understanding - career clarification - different direction, outside academia 5 0.3% 0 3 2 0 0 2 0 1 2 1 2 2 1 4137 insight career chg to non-rese self-understanding - career clarification - does not want to do independent research 14 0.8% 5 5 1 2 1 1 4 0 9 1 6 7 3 11138 insight career chg to teaching self-understanding - career clarification - likes teaching, can teach 8 0.5% 1 1 2 4 0 0 6 0 2 0 6 2 0 8139 insight career clarified learned ready for career choice 7 0.4% 1 1 2 3 0 1 6 0 0 0 4 3 2 5140 insight career clarified self-understanding - career clarification - likes working with others 9 0.5% 3 3 2 1 0 1 4 0 4 0 3 6 1 8141 insight career clarified self-understanding - clarification of career and life interests 66 3.9% 19 16 21 7 3 19 27 3 17 9 22 35 24 42142 insight career clarified learned enjoyed doing interviews 2 0.1% 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1143 insight career clarified learned importance of contributing to community 3 0.2% 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 2 1 2144 career Total Career interests: clarified 133 7.8% 36 37 38 18 4 30 55 5 43 16 51 66 40 93145 insight grad school moved away self-understanding - career clarification - not ready for grad school 6 0.4% 1 3 2 0 0 3 0 2 1 1 3 2 3 3146 insight grad school moved toward self-understanding - career clarification - likes academia 1 0.1% 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1

147 insight grad school moved toward self-understanding - career clarification - decided to go to grad school or confirmed decision 13 0.8% 6 1 3 0 3 4 4 0 5 2 4 7 7 6

148 grad school Total Graduate school interests: Clarified or confirmed 20 1.2% 7 4 5 0 4 7 4 2 7 3 7 10 10 10149 insight major field change self-understanding - career clarification - different focus within same field 7 0.4% 1 2 2 2 0 0 5 1 1 1 3 3 1 6150 insight major field retain self-understanding - career clarification - confirmed current direction, field 20 1.2% 2 4 8 4 2 2 9 2 7 3 8 9 3 17151 major field Total Academic field: Clarified or confirmed interests in or within current academic field 27 1.6% 3 6 10 6 2 2 14 3 8 4 11 12 4 23152 insight non-academic faith values self-understanding - interest clarification - importance of own faith values 9 0.5% 0 3 6 0 0 5 4 0 0 2 2 5 2 7153 non-academic Total Faith values: clarified importance of own faith values 9 0.5% 0 3 6 0 0 5 4 0 0 2 2 5 2 7154 insight oral comm enjoys self-understanding - interest clarification - presenting 1 0.1% 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1155 oral comm Total Presentations: learned enjoys presenting 1 0.1% 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1156 insight research enjoys learned found doing own work exciting, motivating 4 0.2% 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 3 1 3157 insight research enjoys self-understanding - career clarification - enjoys, loves research 32 1.9% 6 9 9 2 6 11 7 1 13 3 8 21 4 28158 research Total Research skills: Learned enjoys research 36 2.1% 6 11 10 3 6 11 8 2 15 4 8 24 5 31

2/22/2012

Part 5, Page: 48

Line Group 1 Group 3 Group 4 Descriptive Text Total Pct NS SS Hum Prof Self Red Tan Wht Ylw L M H M F159 insight writing dislikes self-understanding - interest clarification - does not like writing papers 5 0.3% 0 2 3 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 0 5160 insight writing likes self-understanding - interest clarification - writing 3 0.2% 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 2161 writing Total Writing: Clarified interest in writing 8 0.5% 0 3 4 0 1 3 2 1 2 1 4 3 1 7162 insight general general self-understanding - personality, character 14 0.8% 4 1 9 0 0 4 6 0 4 3 4 7 6 8163 general Total Personality: clarified understanding of own personality, character 14 0.8% 4 1 9 0 0 4 6 0 4 3 4 7 6 8164 insight work ethic clarified self-understanding - understands own work ethic better 2 0.1% 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2165 work ethic Total Work ethic: Understands own work ethic better 2 0.1% 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2166 167 INSIGHTS SUBTOTAL: 323 18.9% 72 90 111 31 19 97 117 20 89 45 113 165 80 243168 169 x-nothing Total Nothing: Little or nothing learned about self during capstone 25 1.5% 2 11 11 1 0 4 7 9 5 3 11 11 10 15170 NOTHING SUBTOTAL: 25 1.5% 2 11 11 1 0 4 7 9 5 3 11 11 10 15171 172 Grand Total Grand total: 1708 100.0% 440 597 484 89 95 560 395 169 584 335 607 766 486 ###

2/22/2012

Part 5, Page: 49

Table Q2‐3: Summary Tally of Responses by Category and Topic To: What did you learn about yourself as a result of your capstone experience?H=>3.50

Clarified understanding M= 3.00 to 3.49L=<3.00


Group 1 indicates whether the response related to a perceived strength, limitation or deficiency, or simply a self‐insight. Group 3 indicates the general topic area of the response.


Line Group 1 Descriptive Text Total Pct NS SS Hum Prof Self Red Tan Wht Ylw L M H M F1 STRENGTH4 General academic abilities: Views self as more academically capable 64 3.7% 4.5% 4.0% 3.3% 1.1% 3.2% 4.5% 1.5% 4.1% 4.5% 3.3% 4.4% 3.4% 3.9% 3.7%15 Communication skills: Views self as more capable (writing, oral, presentations) 118 6.9% 5.9% 6.5% 8.5% 5.6% 7.4% 8.0% 7.1% 11.2% 4.5% 5.7% 5.9% 8.2% 6.2% 7.2%26 Critical thinking skills: Views self as more capable 82 4.8% 4.8% 5.0% 4.5% 4.5% 4.2% 3.2% 4.6% 7.1% 5.8% 5.4% 4.3% 5.0% 4.3% 5.0%34 Interpersonal skills: Views self as having interpersonal/collaboration skills 34 2.0% 1.4% 2.8% 1.7% 2.2% 1.1% 2.3% 1.8% 3.0% 1.5% 1.5% 2.3% 2.0% 1.4% 2.2%43 Personal potential: Views self as having greater achievement potential 188 11.0% 12.3% 9.9% 12.0% 12.4% 6.3% 11.1% 10.4% 5.9% 12.8% 13.1% 9.9% 11.0% 10.5% 11.2%

57 Project management skills: Views self as having good project management skills 426 24.9% 21.4% 28.3% 25.2% 14.6% 28.4% 27.1% 20.5% 26.0% 25.5% 26.6% 25.4% 23.9% 25.9% 24.5%

59 Reflection skills: Views self as more capable of doing self-reflection 2 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.2%69 Research skills: Views self as more capable of doing research 155 9.1% 12.3% 9.7% 4.1% 11.2% 12.6% 8.2% 8.9% 5.9% 11.0% 7.2% 10.9% 8.5% 9.1% 9.1%

80Work ethic: Views self as having strong work ethic, highly motivated, more perseverance, patient, tolerant of obstacles 94 5.5% 6.6% 5.7% 3.9% 3.4% 9.5% 6.8% 2.8% 6.5% 5.8% 4.5% 6.4% 5.2% 5.1% 5.6%

82 STRENGTH 1163 68% 69.1% 72.0% 63.2% 57.3% 72.6% 71.3% 58.0% 69.8% 71.4% 67.2% 69.5% 67.4% 66.5% 68.7%

84 LIMITATION87 General limitations: New understanding of limitations, weaknesses, in general 30 1.8% 2.3% 1.8% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 2.5% 0.0% 1.9% 1.2% 1.2% 2.5% 2.9% 1.3%89 General academic limitations: new understanding of academic weaknesses 5 0.3% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.2%96 Communication skills: New understanding of limitations, weaknesses 28 1.6% 1.6% 1.8% 1.7% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 2.3% 1.2% 1.9% 2.1% 2.1% 1.0% 1.9% 1.6%103 Project management skills: New understanding of limitations, weaknesses 104 6.1% 6.4% 5.9% 6.4% 5.6% 5.3% 5.9% 4.8% 9.5% 6.2% 12.2% 4.6% 4.6% 8.2% 5.2%105 Research skills: New understanding of limitations, weaknesses 2 0.1% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%108 Confidence: New understanding of limitations, weaknesses 9 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.6% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 1.4% 0.6% 0.7% 0.4% 0.2% 0.7%116 Work ethic: New understanding of limitations, weaknesses 19 1.1% 2.3% 0.7% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 0.8% 1.8% 0.7% 1.8% 1.0% 0.9% 1.4% 1.0%118 LIMITATION 197 11.5% 14.1% 11.1% 11.6% 6.7% 7.4% 10.7% 10.6% 13.0% 12.5% 18.5% 10.0% 9.7% 15.0% 10.1%

120 INSIGHT122 General academic interests: clarified 15 0.9% 1.6% 0.3% 0.6% 2.2% 1.1% 1.1% 1.5% 0.6% 0.3% 0.9% 1.0% 0.8% 1.0% 0.8%124 Communication skills: Gained insight about writing style 10 0.6% 0.0% 0.7% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.8% 0.0% 0.2% 0.3% 0.5% 0.8% 0.2% 0.7%126 Critical thinking skills: Learned need to value other's opinions 1 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%128 Project management skills: Understands own project management style better 7 0.4% 0.7% 0.2% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.3% 0.3% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4%133 General academic interests: clarified 40 2.3% 1.4% 2.8% 3.1% 1.1% 1.1% 3.4% 2.8% 3.0% 0.9% 1.5% 2.0% 3.0% 0.8% 2.9%144 Career interests: clarified 133 7.8% 8.2% 6.2% 7.9% 20.2% 4.2% 5.4% 13.9% 3.0% 7.4% 4.8% 8.4% 8.6% 8.2% 7.6%148 Graduate school interests: Clarified or confirmed 20 1.2% 1.6% 0.7% 1.0% 0.0% 4.2% 1.3% 1.0% 1.2% 1.2% 0.9% 1.2% 1.3% 2.1% 0.8%

151 Academic field: Clarified or confirmed interests in or within current academic field 27 1.6% 0.7% 1.0% 2.1% 6.7% 2.1% 0.4% 3.5% 1.8% 1.4% 1.2% 1.8% 1.6% 0.8% 1.9%

153 Faith values: clarified importance of own faith values 9 0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.3% 0.7% 0.4% 0.6%155 Presentations: learned enjoys presenting 1 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%158 Research skills: Learned enjoys research 36 2.1% 1.4% 1.8% 2.1% 3.4% 6.3% 2.0% 2.0% 1.2% 2.6% 1.2% 1.3% 3.1% 1.0% 2.5%161 Writing: Clarified interest in writing 8 0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 0.8% 0.0% 1.1% 0.5% 0.5% 0.6% 0.3% 0.3% 0.7% 0.4% 0.2% 0.6%163 Personality: clarified understanding of own personality, character 14 0.8% 0.9% 0.2% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 1.5% 0.0% 0.7% 0.9% 0.7% 0.9% 1.2% 0.7%165 Work ethic: Understands own work ethic better 2 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%167 INSIGHTS 323 18.9% 16.4% 15.1% 22.9% 34.8% 20.0% 17.3% 29.6% 11.8% 15.2% 13.4% 18.6% 21.5% 16.5% 19.9%

170 NOTHING 25 1.5% 0.5% 1.8% 2.3% 1.1% 0.0% 0.7% 1.8% 5.3% 0.9% 0.9% 1.8% 1.4% 2.1% 1.2%172 Grand total: 1708 100.0% 440 597 484 89 95 560 395 169 584 335 607 766 486 1222

2/22/2012

Part 5, Page: 50

Table Q3-1 : Detailed Tally by Topic of Student Responses To:What aspects of your capstone experience do you think will be of most value to you after you graduate? H=>3.50

M= 3.00 to 3.49L=<3.00

ALL BY MAJOR DIVISION BY SCHOOL BY GPA GROUP GENDERline Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 ID Description Total % NS SS Hum Prof Self Red Tan Wht Yllw L M H M F1 1 skill dev collab general 99 collaboration skills - general 7 0.4% 1 4 2 0 0 3 3 0 1 0 3 4 2 52 1 skill dev collab advisor 101 collaboration skills - responding to feedback 3 0.2% 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 33 1 skill dev collab advisor 227 profitable conversations / exchange of ideas 3 0.2% 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 24 1 skill dev collab outside 104 collaboration skills - getting help from others 4 0.2% 1 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 4 0 1 35 1 skill dev collab outside 105 collaboration skills - making contacts in field 4 0.2% 0 4 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 3 1 36 1 skill dev collab teamwork 100 collaboration skills - teamwork 13 0.7% 2 4 6 1 0 2 5 2 4 4 3 6 5 87 1 skill dev collab teamwork 636 collaboration skills - leadership 3 0.2% 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 1 28 collab Total Development of collaboration skills 37 1.9% 7 18 11 1 0 14 10 3 10 6 15 16 11 269 1 skill dev comm general 29 communication skills - general 23 1.2% 7 6 10 0 0 12 0 3 8 1 10 12 6 1710 1 skill dev comm oral 50 oral communication - general 13 0.7% 4 3 4 0 2 4 2 0 6 2 4 6 4 811 1 skill dev comm oral 51 oral communication - presentation skills 29 1.5% 9 11 6 1 2 6 14 2 7 6 13 10 8 2112 1 skill dev comm oral 52 oral communication - present difficult concepts 7 0.4% 3 1 2 1 0 2 1 0 4 0 1 6 1 613 1 skill dev comm oral 632 oral communication - scientific conversation 1 0.1% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 114 1 skill dev comm oral 645 oral communication - defend ideas/theories orally 9 0.5% 1 5 2 1 0 2 1 0 6 0 6 3 3 615 1 skill dev comm writing 30 writing - general 79 4.1% 20 34 22 1 2 48 8 5 18 16 28 35 19 6016 1 skill dev comm writing 31 writing - clarity 4 0.2% 0 3 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 417 1 skill dev comm writing 33 writing - mechanics 1 0.1% 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 118 1 skill dev comm writing 34 writing - multiple drafts 6 0.3% 1 2 3 0 0 0 2 1 3 1 2 3 0 619 1 skill dev comm writing 36 writing - long work/research work 43 2.2% 15 13 12 0 3 12 13 3 15 8 19 16 10 3320 1 skill dev comm writing 37 writing - foreign language skills 9 0.5% 0 2 4 1 2 2 4 1 2 0 4 5 1 821 1 skill dev comm writing 40 writing - being concise 2 0.1% 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 122 1 skill dev comm writing 45 writing - thematic development 1 0.1% 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 123 1 skill dev comm writing 46 writing - integrating sources 4 0.2% 1 1 2 0 0 3 1 0 0 1 2 1 3 124 1 skill dev comm writing 48 writing - persuasive 2 0.1% 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 125 1 skill dev comm writing 640 writing - creative 1 0.1% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 126 comm Total Development of writing and oral communication skills 234 12.2% 62 84 71 5 12 95 48 17 73 36 97 100 57 17627 1 skill dev CT general 75 CT - general 33 1.7% 7 17 8 0 1 19 6 1 7 3 16 14 12 2128 1 skill dev CT analysis 76 CT - analysis skills 21 1.1% 2 12 3 3 1 8 4 2 7 1 13 7 1 2029 1 skill dev CT analysis 328 development - analytical skills 2 0.1% 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 130 1 skill dev CT analysis 77 CT - analysis, drawing conclusions 8 0.4% 1 4 2 0 1 2 0 0 6 3 4 1 3 531 1 skill dev CT analysis 78 CT - problem solving 3 0.2% 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 332 1 skill dev CT analysis 79 CT - analysis of primary material 6 0.3% 1 2 2 0 1 4 0 1 1 2 2 2 3 333 1 skill dev CT analysis 80 CT- analysis of secondary material 2 0.1% 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 034 1 skill dev CT analysis 92 CT - learned to refine / develop /clarify ideas 7 0.4% 2 2 3 0 0 4 0 0 3 0 5 2 1 635 1 skill dev CT analysis 373 CT - analyze from different perspectives 6 0.3% 0 1 3 2 0 0 4 0 2 1 1 4 2 436 1 skill dev CT apply 94 CT - applying principles / theory 4 0.2% 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 2 2 0 1 337 1 skill dev CT argument 90 CT - developed an original argument / project 17 0.9% 3 6 5 0 3 8 2 1 6 3 5 9 4 1338 1 skill dev CT argument 96 CT - addressing opposing views/information 1 0.1% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 039 1 skill dev CT integrate 83 CT - integrating knowledge from other disciplines 1 0.1% 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 140 1 skill dev CT integrate 86 CT - synthesis 13 0.7% 6 4 1 0 2 2 2 2 7 1 5 7 7 641 1 skill dev CT manner 81 CT - creative thinking 3 0.2% 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 342 1 skill dev CT manner 87 CT - open-mindedness / flexible thinking 5 0.3% 0 1 3 1 0 2 2 0 1 1 2 2 1 443 1 skill dev CT manner 650 CT - in another language 1 0.1% 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1

44 CT Total Development of critical thinking skills: analysis, synthesis, multiple perspectives, dealing with primary sources 133 7.0% 26 54 36 6 11 56 23 7 47 21 59 53 39 94

45 1 skill dev projmgt general 56 project management - general 21 1.1% 8 5 8 0 0 8 5 2 6 4 5 12 4 1746 1 skill dev projmgt organiz 70 project management - organization 40 2.1% 12 16 7 3 2 17 6 7 10 8 15 17 8 3247 1 skill dev projmgt organiz 72 project management - goal setting 6 0.3% 1 2 1 1 1 2 0 1 3 2 2 2 2 448 1 skill dev projmgt organiz 73 project management - focus / reign in large project 7 0.4% 2 3 2 0 0 5 1 0 1 1 2 4 4 349 1 skill dev projmgt organiz 629 project management - manage multiple tasks/projects 2 0.1% 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 250 1 skill dev projmgt organiz 654 project management - design 3 0.2% 2 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 351 1 skill dev projmgt own 57 project management - working independently 62 3.2% 26 19 15 0 2 28 8 3 23 11 27 24 18 4452 1 skill dev projmgt own 59 project management - taking responsibility 2 0.1% 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1

53 1 skill dev projmgt own 68 project management - see major project through from beginning to end 46 2.4% 9 21 14 0 2 23 4 4 15 8 15 23 19 27

2/22/2012

Part 5, Page: 51

line Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 ID Description Total % NS SS Hum Prof Self Red Tan Wht Yllw L M H M F54 1 skill dev projmgt own 198 project management - taking initiative 3 0.2% 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 355 1 skill dev projmgt own 631 project management - prioritizing 4 0.2% 1 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 1 1 3 156 1 skill dev projmgt timeman 60 time management - general 96 5.0% 22 35 33 1 5 32 16 11 37 23 36 37 28 6857 1 skill dev projmgt timeman 61 time management - meeting deadlines 9 0.5% 1 3 2 3 0 3 3 1 2 2 3 4 3 658 1 skill dev projmgt timeman 643 project management - working under pressure 12 0.6% 2 5 4 0 1 2 3 2 5 3 0 9 2 1059 1 skill dev projmgt troublsh 62 project management - troubleshooting 13 0.7% 6 3 3 0 1 8 3 0 2 5 3 5 4 960 1 skill dev projmgt troublsh 65 project management - troubleshoot experiment difficulties 1 0.1% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 161 1 skill dev projmgt troublsh 66 project management - troubleshooting - overcame adversity 3 0.2% 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 2 1 0 3

62 projmgt TotalDevelopment of project management skill development: time management, organization, working independently, perseverance

330 17.3% 99 115 93 8 15 135 53 32 110 72 114 144 96 234

63 1 skill dev research general 1 research skills - general 123 6.4% 34 48 28 5 8 40 28 10 45 27 48 48 34 8964 1 skill dev research analysis 25 research - interpreting findings 4 0.2% 2 1 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 3 1 365 1 skill dev research analysis 27 research - data analysis 4 0.2% 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 3 1 0 3 166 1 skill dev research analysis 343 research - analysis - general 2 0.1% 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 267 1 skill dev research comp 2 computer skills - programming 10 0.5% 5 2 2 1 0 3 3 3 1 2 3 5 2 868 1 skill dev research comp 5 computer skills - general 4 0.2% 2 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 2 1 1 3 169 1 skill dev research cond 3 research - conducting - lab skills 15 0.8% 13 1 0 0 1 3 1 1 10 1 9 5 1 1470 1 skill dev research cond 4 research - conducting - data gathering 9 0.5% 2 7 0 0 0 2 3 0 4 3 4 2 4 571 1 skill dev research cond 23 research - field work specific to discipline 4 0.2% 1 2 1 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 472 1 skill dev research cond 28 research methods - general 6 0.3% 1 2 2 1 0 1 3 0 2 0 4 2 4 273 1 skill dev research design 13 research design - general 5 0.3% 2 3 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 1 4 0 3 274 1 skill dev research litreview 19 literature review - locating sources 6 0.3% 3 1 2 0 0 0 4 0 2 0 2 4 2 475 1 skill dev research litreview 20 literature review - evaluating materials 12 0.6% 5 3 4 0 0 2 5 1 4 1 3 8 4 876 1 skill dev research litreview 345 literature review - integrating sources 3 0.2% 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 277 1 skill dev research presenting 24 research - presenting findings 6 0.3% 3 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 3 1 2 3 1 578 1 skill dev research quant 10 quantitative skills - analysis 3 0.2% 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 1 1 279 1 skill dev research quant 11 quantitative skills - statistics 3 0.2% 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 3 0 2 1

80 research Total Development of research skills: overall skills, design, methods, data gathering/analysis, lab, quantitative, computer, presentation 219 11.5% 76 81 42 10 10 66 53 20 80 42 90 87 66 153

81 1 skill dev tech general 106 technical skills - general 8 0.4% 5 1 1 0 1 5 2 0 1 1 2 5 1 782 1 skill dev tech applied 109 technical skills - real-world application 12 0.6% 2 3 0 7 0 4 4 4 0 1 4 7 3 983 1 skill dev tech disc 107 technical skills - specific to discipline 15 0.8% 4 2 1 7 1 2 8 0 5 3 5 7 5 1084 1 skill dev tech skills 506 experience -practice with technical skills 3 0.2% 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 285 tech Total Technical skill development 38 2.0% 11 7 3 15 2 11 16 4 7 6 11 21 10 2886 2 knowledge bigview general 138 understanding - larger context - general 4 0.2% 0 2 1 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 4 0 0 487 2 knowledge bigview context 139 understanding - larger context - personal experience 2 0.1% 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 288 2 knowledge bigview cultural 222 understanding - of others or other cultures 9 0.5% 1 3 5 0 0 2 6 0 1 0 3 6 3 689 2 knowledge bigview learn 637 understanding - how to learn 5 0.3% 2 2 1 0 0 3 1 1 0 2 3 0 4 190 2 knowledge bigview research 127 understanding - research process 7 0.4% 3 3 1 0 0 2 4 1 0 0 2 5 1 691 2 knowledge bigview thinking 129 intellectual independence 6 0.3% 1 4 1 0 0 4 0 0 2 1 1 4 0 692 bigview Total Understanding knowledge in a broader context 33 1.7% 8 15 9 1 0 15 13 2 3 4 13 16 8 2593 2 knowledge disciplinary general 118 disciplinary knowledge - general 27 1.4% 7 7 6 3 3 5 14 0 8 5 14 8 11 1694 2 knowledge disciplinary ethics 122 disciplinary knowledge, ethics 2 0.1% 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 295 2 knowledge disciplinary expertise 119 disciplinary knowledge - expertise 1 0.1% 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 196 2 knowledge disciplinary literature 125 disciplinary knowledge - literature 1 0.1% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 197 2 knowledge disciplinary practice 120 disciplinary knowledge - ways of practice 5 0.3% 0 1 0 3 1 0 4 0 1 1 2 2 0 598 2 knowledge disciplinary project 123 disciplinary knowledge - project area 43 2.2% 8 22 6 5 2 12 15 9 7 6 15 22 15 2899 2 knowledge disciplinary theory 124 disciplinary knowledge - theoretical foundation 1 0.1% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0

100 disciplinary Total Gaining disciplinary knowledge or knowledge in the project area 80 4.2% 16 31 14 11 6 18 34 9 19 14 32 34 27 53

101 2 knowledge self general 110 self-understanding - general 9 0.5% 0 3 6 0 0 4 2 0 3 5 2 2 2 7102 2 knowledge self abilities 111 self-understanding - of own abilities 10 0.5% 2 4 3 0 1 4 3 1 2 2 4 4 4 6

103 2 knowledge self abilities 113 self-understanding - of lack of quality in performance / mistakes - general 2 0.1% 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 0

104 2 knowledge self abilities 542 self-understanding - of own abilities - time management 1 0.1% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1105 2 knowledge self abilities 549 self-understanding - of own abilities - complete major project 18 0.9% 3 6 9 0 0 7 4 1 6 3 5 10 7 11106 2 knowledge self abilities 551 self-understanding - of own abilities - research - design 2 0.1% 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0107 2 knowledge self abilities 555 self-understanding - of own abilities - creativity 2 0.1% 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 2108 2 knowledge self abilities 563 self-understanding - of own abilities - work independently 4 0.2% 2 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 1 2 2 2

2/22/2012

Part 5, Page: 52

line Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 ID Description Total % NS SS Hum Prof Self Red Tan Wht Yllw L M H M F

109 2 knowledge self abilities 597 self-understanding - of own abilities - can make a difference in community / world 3 0.2% 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 2 0 3

110 2 knowledge self abilities 582 self-understanding - disposition - perseverance 1 0.1% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1

111 2 knowledge self career 115 self-understanding - of career-related interests (career clarification) 10 0.5% 2 6 2 0 0 2 5 0 3 1 5 4 2 8

112 2 knowledge self career 534 self-understanding - career clarification - same/correct field 2 0.1% 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 2 0

113 2 knowledge self career 537 self-understanding - career clarification - does not want to do independent research 1 0.1% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0

114 2 knowledge self career 559 self-understanding - career clarification - working with others 2 0.1% 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 1

115 2 knowledge self career 634 self-understanding - career clarification - help society / community 2 0.1% 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 2

116 2 knowledge self career 538 self-understanding - career clarification - research interests/ interest in research 2 0.1% 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 2

117 2 knowledge self interests 560 self-understanding - of interests - academic 2 0.1% 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 0118 2 knowledge self style 653 self-understanding - artistic style 1 0.1% 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0

119 self Total Gaining self-understanding of abilities, attributes, and interests (academic, personal and career) 74 3.9% 17 24 28 3 2 25 22 5 22 17 25 32 28 46

120 3 disposition chng confidence general 156 self-confidence - general 16 0.8% 3 6 6 1 0 8 5 0 3 1 7 8 2 14121 3 disposition chng confidence academic 157 self-confidence - academic - general 15 0.8% 3 3 4 0 5 1 1 1 11 2 8 4 2 12

122 3 disposition chng confidence academic 158 self-confidence - academic - ability to do independent research 9 0.5% 3 3 3 0 0 2 0 2 5 1 4 4 1 8

123 3 disposition chng confidence academic 159 self-confidence - academic - writing 7 0.4% 1 1 5 0 0 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 5124 3 disposition chng confidence academic 160 self-confidence - academic - oral presentation ability 4 0.2% 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 3 0 1 3125 3 disposition chng confidence academic 359 self-confidence - academic - articulating ideas 3 0.2% 0 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 3126 3 disposition chng confidence accomplish 150 developed sense of accomplishment 7 0.4% 0 5 1 1 0 4 1 0 2 3 2 2 3 4127 3 disposition chng confidence personal 162 self-confidence - personal - self-discipline 1 0.1% 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1128 3 disposition chng confidence personal 163 self-confidence - personal - reaching goals 1 0.1% 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1129 3 disposition chng confidence personal 164 self-confidence - personal - complete long-term project 23 1.2% 6 6 9 0 2 7 5 3 8 7 6 10 5 18130 3 disposition chng confidence personal 165 self-confidence - personal - creative abilities 1 0.1% 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1131 3 disposition chng confidence personal 630 self-confidence - personal - interacting with others 1 0.1% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1132 confidence Total Increase in self-confidence in general and in abilities 88 4.6% 18 25 34 4 7 28 16 8 35 20 36 31 16 71133 3 disposition chng work value collab 644 learned importance of getting input from others 1 0.1% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0134 3 disposition chng work value community 601 learned importance of work in community 3 0.2% 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 2 0 1 2135 3 disposition chng work value hardwork 135 learned importance of hard work 9 0.5% 3 2 4 0 0 1 5 1 2 4 0 5 1 8136 3 disposition chng work value motiv 196 development - interest grew 2 0.1% 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2137 3 disposition chng work value motiv 142 motivation - general 7 0.4% 1 4 1 0 1 2 2 1 2 0 3 4 0 7138 3 disposition chng work value motiv 143 motivation - toward research 4 0.2% 0 1 3 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 1 0 4139 3 disposition chng work value patience 155 learned patience necessary for research 1 0.1% 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1140 3 disposition chng work value perseverance 166 perseverance 18 0.9% 5 6 5 0 2 9 5 0 4 4 5 9 3 15141 3 disposition chng work value projmgt 614 learned importance of original research / owning work 1 0.1% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0142 3 disposition chng work value projmgt 648 learned importance of making decisions independently 1 0.1% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0

143 3 disposition chng work value projmgt 651 learned importance of working independently / being self-sufficient 1 0.1% 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0

144 3 disposition chng work value research 652 learned importance of - research of others 1 0.1% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1145 3 disposition chng work value responsible 167 learned how to be responsible / accountable 1 0.1% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0146 3 disposition chng work value tolerance 154 tolerance of obstacles, risk, failure, ambiguity 3 0.2% 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 0 1 2147 3 disposition chng work value work ethic 149 self-discipline / work ethic 32 1.7% 8 10 10 2 2 12 4 1 15 6 17 9 13 19

148 work value TotalIncrease in valuing work related attributes of research/projects: work ethic, perseverance, tolerance for obstacles, independence, responsibility, motivation

85 4.4% 23 27 27 2 6 29 20 4 32 18 34 33 24 61

149 4 profdevel profdevel general 169 professional development - general 41 2.1% 8 10 12 9 2 12 16 3 10 4 14 23 14 27150 4 profdevel profdevel conference 172 professional development - gave conference presentation 1 0.1% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0


152 4 profdevel profdevel jobprep 639 professional development - interview skills 8 0.4% 1 4 1 2 0 3 2 2 1 2 3 3 4 4153 4 profdevel profdevel portfolio 176 professional development - provided professional portfolio 28 1.5% 7 6 13 2 0 8 7 1 12 5 11 12 11 17153 4 profdevel profdevel contacts 800 professional development - contacts, networking, references 8 0.4% 3 1 4 0 0 1 5 0 2 1 3 4 4 4

154 4 profdevel profdevel postproj 178 professional development - learned ways of developing project post-graduation 8 0.4% 2 2 1 1 2 2 3 0 3 1 2 5 1 7

155 4 profdevel profdevel publishable 173 professional development - produced work that was or will be published (or is publishable) 4 0.2% 1 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 3 2 2

156 4 profdevel profdevel schoolprep 179 preparation for grad school/professional school 77 4.0% 24 28 19 1 5 18 21 14 24 13 30 34 23 54

157 4 profdevel profdevel schoolprep 199 professional development - helped prepare for / led directly to graduate level position 1 0.1% 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1

2/22/2012

Part 5, Page: 53

line Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 ID Description Total % NS SS Hum Prof Self Red Tan Wht Yllw L M H M F

158 profdevel TotalPreparation for graduate/professional school or development of career skills, or preparation of materials useful for job/school applications

224 11.7% 57 76 57 19 15 60 61 22 81 31 88 105 69 155

159 5 experience of value all positive 633 all aspects positive/ valuable 12 0.6% 5 4 1 1 1 5 4 0 3 2 8 2 5 7160 5 experience of value all positive 484 experience - generally valueable 27 1.4% 9 9 6 1 2 9 4 1 13 9 9 9 11 16161 all Total Generally thought experience was valuable. 39 2.0% 14 13 7 2 3 14 8 1 16 11 17 11 16 23162 5 experience of value collab outside 627 experience - collaboration - contacts in field 10 0.5% 3 2 0 3 2 2 4 0 4 1 3 6 1 9163 5 experience of value collab peers 517 experience - collaboration - peers 3 0.2% 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 3 0 2 1

164 collab Total Valued collaboration experiences with student peers and others 13 0.7% 3 3 1 4 2 3 5 1 4 1 6 6 3 10

165 5 experience of value communicationcommunicatio 492 experience - comm - oral 7 0.4% 2 3 1 1 0 1 2 0 4 2 2 3 4 3166 5 experience of value communicationcommunicatio 508 experience - comm - writing 10 0.5% 3 4 2 0 1 3 3 1 3 3 4 3 6 4167 communication Total Valued writing or oral communication experience 17 0.9% 5 7 3 1 1 4 5 1 7 5 6 6 10 7168 5 experience of value CT CT 646 experience - CT - general 3 0.2% 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 1 2169 5 experience of value CT CT 647 experience - CT - creative thinking 1 0.1% 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0170 CT Total Valued critical thinking experience 4 0.2% 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 2 2171 5 experience of value freedom direction 417 freedom - to develop own research plan 1 0.1% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1172 5 experience of value freedom work 411 freedom - to work independently 7 0.4% 3 1 2 0 1 2 1 2 2 0 4 3 2 5173 5 experience of value freedom work 414 freedom - to set own deadlines 1 0.1% 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1

174 freedom Total Valued the freedom or independence of work experienced during the capstone 9 0.5% 4 1 3 0 1 2 1 3 3 1 4 4 2 7

175 5 experience of value mentor general 422 mentor - great overall / great working with a mentor 12 0.6% 5 3 4 0 0 7 0 0 5 0 6 6 2 10176 5 experience of value mentor collab 448 mentor - meetings positive 2 0.1% 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1177 5 experience of value mentor feedback 424 mentor - helpful - feedback 1 0.1% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0178 5 experience of value mentor helpful 430 mentor - helpful - writing process 1 0.1% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1179 5 experience of value mentor helpful 431 mentor - helpful - conducting research 1 0.1% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1180 5 experience of value mentor knowledge 433 mentor - knowledgeable - about topic 2 0.1% 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 2181 mentor Total Valued the relationship with the mentor 19 1.0% 6 8 5 0 0 10 1 1 7 0 8 11 4 15182 5 experience of value project general 293 project - good quality 3 0.2% 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 2183 5 experience of value project funding 180 obtained funding for project 2 0.1% 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1184 5 experience of value project value 505 experience - rewarding 2 0.1% 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2185 5 experience of value project value 642 experience - receiving recognition / honors 2 0.1% 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 1 1

186 project Total Valued the rewarding nature of the project or its recognition by others 9 0.5% 3 6 0 0 0 1 1 4 3 2 5 2 3 6

187 5 experience of value project type community 527 community - fieldwork - positive 8 0.4% 1 3 3 1 0 2 5 0 1 1 5 2 2 6188 5 experience of value project type large 495 experience - completing large project 53 2.8% 13 22 15 1 2 16 7 8 22 10 19 24 14 39189 5 experience of value project type realworld 626 experience - real world / field 26 1.4% 8 5 4 9 0 1 14 4 7 4 14 8 5 21190 5 experience of value project type scope 357 able to integrate other work or interests into project 2 0.1% 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1191 5 experience of value project type topic 490 experience - topic 11 0.6% 3 4 2 1 1 4 1 1 5 4 5 2 4 7192 5 experience of value project type work 493 experience - hard work 13 0.7% 6 5 0 2 0 4 3 3 3 3 5 5 7 6

193 project type TotalValued an attribute of the project: large scale or difficulty (sense of accomplishment, could do it), real world, ability to integrate interests

113 5.9% 31 40 24 15 3 28 31 16 38 22 49 42 33 80

194 5 experience of value research general 485 experience - research 79 4.1% 21 35 15 0 8 20 13 12 34 17 33 29 16 63195 5 experience of value research idea dev 488 experience - research - develop ideas 5 0.3% 0 4 1 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 2 3 1 4196 5 experience of value research lit review 491 experience - research - lit review 2 0.1% 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 1197 5 experience of value research analysis 638 experience - research - analysis and interpretation 2 0.1% 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2198 5 experience of value research analysis of dat 625 experience - research - data collection / analysis 2 0.1% 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 1199 5 experience of value research interdisc 641 experience - research - interdisciplinary 1 0.1% 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1200 5 experience of value research lab 486 experience - research - working in lab 7 0.4% 6 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 5 3 2 2 1 6201 5 experience of value research outcome 285 research - original 1 0.1% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0202 5 experience of value research outcome 363 research - project contributed to field 1 0.1% 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1203 5 experience of value research outcome 487 experience - research - getting results / end product 13 0.7% 3 4 5 1 0 3 5 2 3 2 6 5 4 9204 5 experience of value research topic 287 research - good topic 1 0.1% 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1

205 research Total Valued the research experience 114 6.0% 34 46 23 1 10 27 24 16 47 24 45 45 25 89

206 Grand Total Grand Total 1912 100% 521 684 491 108 106 641 445 176 648 353 754 803 549 1361207 208 7 None none nobenefits 185 none - no benefits 24

2/22/2012

Part 5, Page: 54

Table Q3-2 : Summary Tally by Topic of Student Responses To:What aspects of your capstone experience do you think will be of most value to you after you graduate? H=>3.50

M= 3.00 to 3.49L=<3.00

ALL BY MAJOR DIVISION BY SCHOOL BY GPA GROUP GENDERline Group 2 Description Total % NS SS Hum Prof Self Red Tan Wht Yllw L M H M F8 collab Total Development of collaboration skills 37 1.9% 7 18 11 1 0 14 10 3 10 6 15 16 11 2626 comm Total Development of writing and oral communication skills 234 12.2% 62 84 71 5 12 95 48 17 73 36 97 100 57 176

44 CT Total Development of critical thinking skills: analysis, synthesis, multiple perspectives, dealing with primary sources 133 7.0% 26 54 36 6 11 56 23 7 47 21 59 53 39 94

62 projmgt Total Development of project management skill development: time management, organization, working independently, perseverance 330 17.3% 99 115 93 8 15 135 53 32 110 72 114 144 96 234

80 research Total Development of research skills: overall skills, design, methods, data gathering/analysis, lab, quantitative, computer, presentation 219 11.5% 76 81 42 10 10 66 53 20 80 42 90 87 66 153

85 tech Total Technical skill development 38 2.0% 11 7 3 15 2 11 16 4 7 6 11 21 10 2892 bigview Total Understanding knowledge in a broader context 33 1.7% 8 15 9 1 0 15 13 2 3 4 13 16 8 25

100 disciplinary Total Gaining disciplinary knowledge or knowledge in the project area 80 4.2% 16 31 14 11 6 18 34 9 19 14 32 34 27 53

119 self Total Gaining self-understanding of abilities, attributes, and interests (academic, personal and career) 74 3.9% 17 24 28 3 2 25 22 5 22 17 25 32 28 46

132 confidence Total Increase in self-confidence in general and in abilities 88 4.6% 18 25 34 4 7 28 16 8 35 20 36 31 16 71


85 4.4% 23 27 27 2 6 29 20 4 32 18 34 33 24 61


224 11.7% 57 76 57 19 15 60 61 22 81 31 88 105 69 155

161 all Total Generally thought experience was valuable. 39 2.0% 14 13 7 2 3 14 8 1 16 11 17 11 16 23

164 collab Total Valued collaboration experiences with student peers and others 13 0.7% 3 3 1 4 2 3 5 1 4 1 6 6 3 10

167 communication TotaValued writing or oral communication experience 17 0.9% 5 7 3 1 1 4 5 1 7 5 6 6 10 7170 CT Total Valued critical thinking experience 4 0.2% 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 2 2

174 freedom Total Valued the freedom or independence of work experienced during the capstone 9 0.5% 4 1 3 0 1 2 1 3 3 1 4 4 2 7

181 mentor Total Valued the relationship with the mentor 19 1.0% 6 8 5 0 0 10 1 1 7 0 8 11 4 15

186 project Total Valued the rewarding nature of the project or its recognition by others 9 0.5% 3 6 0 0 0 1 1 4 3 2 5 2 3 6

193 project type Total Valued an attribute of the project: large scale or difficulty (sense of accomplishment, could do it), real world, ability to integrate interests 113 5.9% 31 40 24 15 3 28 31 16 38 22 49 42 33 80

205 research Total Valued the research experience 114 6.0% 34 46 23 1 10 27 24 16 47 24 45 45 25 89

206 Grand Total Grand Total 1912 100% 521 684 491 108 106 641 445 176 648 353 754 803 549 1361

2/22/2012

Part 5, Page: 55

Table Q3-2 : Summary Tally by Topic of Student Responses To:What aspects of your capstone experience do you think will be of most value to you after you graduate? H=>3.50

Highlighting color scales are across individual rows with sufficient Ns M= 3.00 to 3.49Percentages of column total L=<3.00

ALL BY MAJOR DIVISION BY SCHOOL BY GPA GROUP GENDERline Group 2 Description Total % NS SS Hum Prof Self Red Tan Wht Yllw L M H M F8 collab Total Development of collaboration skills 37 1.9% 1.3% 2.6% 2.2% 0.9% 0.0% 2.2% 2.2% 1.7% 1.5% 1.7% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 1.9%26 comm Total Development of writing and oral communication skills 234 12.2% 11.9% 12.3% 14.5% 4.6% 11.3% 14.8% 10.8% 9.7% 11.3% 10.2% 12.9% 12.5% 10.4% 12.9%

44 CT Total Development of critical thinking skills: analysis, synthesis, multiple perspectives, dealing with primary sources 133 7.0% 5.0% 7.9% 7.3% 5.6% 10.4% 8.7% 5.2% 4.0% 7.3% 5.9% 7.8% 6.6% 7.1% 6.9%

62 projmgt TotalDevelopment of project management skill development: time management, organization, working independently, perseverance

330 17.3% 19.0% 16.8% 18.9% 7.4% 14.2% 21.1% 11.9% 18.2% 17.0% 20.4% 15.1% 17.9% 17.5% 17.2%

80 research TotalDevelopment of research skills: overall skills, design, methods, data gathering/analysis, lab, quantitative, computer, presentation

219 11.5% 14.6% 11.8% 8.6% 9.3% 9.4% 10.3% 11.9% 11.4% 12.3% 11.9% 11.9% 10.8% 12.0% 11.2%

85 tech Total Technical skill development 38 2.0% 2.1% 1.0% 0.6% 13.9% 1.9% 1.7% 3.6% 2.3% 1.1% 1.7% 1.5% 2.6% 1.8% 2.1%92 bigview Total Understanding knowledge in a broader context 33 1.7% 1.5% 2.2% 1.8% 0.9% 0.0% 2.3% 2.9% 1.1% 0.5% 1.1% 1.7% 2.0% 1.5% 1.8%

100 disciplinary Total Gaining disciplinary knowledge or knowledge in the project area 80 4.2% 3.1% 4.5% 2.9% 10.2% 5.7% 2.8% 7.6% 5.1% 2.9% 4.0% 4.2% 4.2% 4.9% 3.9%

119 self Total Gaining self-understanding of abilities, attributes, and interests (academic, personal and career) 74 3.9% 3.3% 3.5% 5.7% 2.8% 1.9% 3.9% 4.9% 2.8% 3.4% 4.8% 3.3% 4.0% 5.1% 3.4%

132 confidence Total Increase in self-confidence in general and in abilities 88 4.6% 3.5% 3.7% 6.9% 3.7% 6.6% 4.4% 3.6% 4.5% 5.4% 5.7% 4.8% 3.9% 2.9% 5.2%


85 4.4% 4.4% 3.9% 5.5% 1.9% 5.7% 4.5% 4.5% 2.3% 4.9% 5.1% 4.5% 4.1% 4.4% 4.5%


224 11.7% 10.9% 11.1% 11.6% 17.6% 14.2% 9.4% 13.7% 12.5% 12.5% 8.8% 11.7% 13.1% 12.6% 11.4%

161 all Total Generally thought experience was valuable. 39 2.0% 2.7% 1.9% 1.4% 1.9% 2.8% 2.2% 1.8% 0.6% 2.5% 3.1% 2.3% 1.4% 2.9% 1.7%

164 collab Total Valued collaboration experiences with student peers and others 13 0.7% 0.6% 0.4% 0.2% 3.7% 1.9% 0.5% 1.1% 0.6% 0.6% 0.3% 0.8% 0.7% 0.5% 0.7%

167 communication Total Valued writing or oral communication experience 17 0.9% 1.0% 1.0% 0.6% 0.9% 0.9% 0.6% 1.1% 0.6% 1.1% 1.4% 0.8% 0.7% 1.8% 0.5%170 CT Total Valued critical thinking experience 4 0.2% 0.2% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.4% 0.1%

174 freedom Total Valued the freedom or independence of work experienced during the capstone 9 0.5% 0.8% 0.1% 0.6% 0.0% 0.9% 0.3% 0.2% 1.7% 0.5% 0.3% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.5%

181 mentor Total Valued the relationship with the mentor 19 1.0% 1.2% 1.2% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 0.2% 0.6% 1.1% 0.0% 1.1% 1.4% 0.7% 1.1%

186 project Total Valued the rewarding nature of the project or its recognition by others 9 0.5% 0.6% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 2.3% 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.2% 0.5% 0.4%

193 project type TotalValued an attribute of the project: large scale or difficulty (sense of accomplishment, could do it), real world, ability to integrate interests

113 5.9% 6.0% 5.8% 4.9% 13.9% 2.8% 4.4% 7.0% 9.1% 5.9% 6.2% 6.5% 5.2% 6.0% 5.9%

205 research Total Valued the research experience 114 6.0% 6.5% 6.7% 4.7% 0.9% 9.4% 4.2% 5.4% 9.1% 7.3% 6.8% 6.0% 5.6% 4.6% 6.5%

206 Grand Total Grand Total 1912 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%N= 521 684 491 108 106 641 445 176 648 353 754 803 549 1361

2/22/2012

Part 5, Page: 56

Table Q4-1: Detailed Counts by Topic (Subtotaled per Group 1)Please tell us about any other aspects of your capstone experience that might be helpful to our study of the benefits of capstones.

ALL BY MAJOR DIVISION BY SCHOOL BY GPA GROUP GENDERline Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 ID Feature (Text code) Total % NS SS Hum Prof Self Red Tan Wht Yllw L M H M F1 advice ‐ oth students collab 705 ask others for help 1 0.2% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 12 advice ‐ oth students disposition 766 if you are passionate about project you will get a lot out of it 1 0.2% 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 13 advice ‐ oth students disposition 715 be open to new ideas / think flexibly 3 0.5% 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 14 advice ‐ oth students integrate 752 it is valuable to include other disciplines in your project 1 0.2% 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 15 advice ‐ oth students mentor 703 make sure your personality matches that of mentor 4 0.6% 0 3 1 0 0 2 1 0 1 2 0 2 2 26 advice ‐ oth students mentor 755 make sure you meet with mentor regularly 7 1.1% 1 5 1 0 0 2 2 0 3 2 5 0 3 47 advice ‐ oth students mentor 768 make sure your mentor has knowledge of topic 2 0.3% 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 28 advice ‐ oth students mentor 769 make sure your mentor has interest in project 3 0.5% 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 29 advice ‐ oth students prep 717 pre‐project ‐ student should have writing skills before starting capstone 1 0.2% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 010 advice ‐ oth students time 704 manage your time well 16 2.5% 5 6 4 1 0 5 4 3 4 10 4 2 5 1111 advice ‐ oth students time 714 the earlier you start the better 5 0.8% 2 3 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 2 3 0 2 312 advice ‐ oth students topic 709 choose topic that will help you after graduation 1 0.2% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 013 advice ‐ oth students topic 712 choose topic that you can stay interested in 13 2.0% 3 8 2 0 0 8 0 2 3 6 4 3 5 814 advice ‐ oth students topic 760 choose topic that has had a lot of prior research 1 0.2% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1

15 advice ‐ oth students Total Advice from student to other students regarding specific aspects of the capstone process 59 9.2% 12 31 14 1 1 28 7 9 15 29 19 11 22 37

16 capst admin ‐ negative class 385 capstone class ‐ not useful / sometimes not useful 5 0.8% 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 1 1 2 1 2 1 417 capst admin ‐ negative class 662 capstone class ‐ not flexible enough 1 0.2% 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 118 capst admin ‐ negative class 669 capstone class ‐ need more sections for clinically‐based class 1 0.2% 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 119 capst admin ‐ negative class 677 capstone class ‐ should meet at least once every two weeks 2 0.3% 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 220 capst admin ‐ negative class 683 capstone class ‐ needs to be focused more on helping individuals with their specific topics 5 0.8% 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 2 0 2 1 2 0 521 capst admin ‐ negative class 743 capstone class ‐ scheduled meetings were not kept 1 0.2% 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 122 capst admin ‐ negative department/major 663 double majors should have freedom to choose which major for capstone 1 0.2% 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 123 capst admin ‐ negative department/major 698 student's capstone experience limited by major/department 1 0.2% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 024 capst admin ‐ negative department/major 731 need more and better courses in this specific major 1 0.2% 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 125 capst admin ‐ negative department/major 741 way dept chooses honors should be improved 1 0.2% 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 026 capst admin ‐ negative department/major 751 department needs to be more involved in students' capstones 2 0.3% 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 127 capst admin ‐ negative evaluation comps 726 comps were too easy 2 0.3% 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 1 128 capst admin ‐ negative evaluation other 729 should receive a grade for capstone 1 0.2% 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 029 capst admin ‐ negative evaluation proportionality 672 oral presentation made up disproportionate percentage of grade 1 0.2% 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 130 capst admin ‐ negative evaluation proportionality 758 weight of capstone grade does not reflect amount of work involved 2 0.3% 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 131 capst admin ‐ negative fieldwork 403 problems with personnel at placement 1 0.2% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 132 capst admin ‐ negative mentor collab 748 mentors should be allowed more time to work with students to develop ideas 3 0.5% 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 2 133 capst admin ‐ negative mentor disposition 666 mentor ‐ department should make sure the mentor is willing to work with students 2 0.3% 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 234 capst admin ‐ negative mentor knowledge 749 mentor ‐ department should make sure mentor is expert in topic 2 0.3% 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 235 capst admin ‐ negative mentor prep 655 mentor ‐ there should be capstone training for mentor / make sure mentor is prepared 8 1.2% 4 3 1 0 0 3 2 0 3 2 3 3 0 836 capst admin ‐ negative prep general 750 pre‐project ‐ need more pre‐capstone preparation for students 16 2.5% 5 4 4 1 2 2 3 5 6 2 8 6 1 1537 capst admin ‐ negative prep disc 665 pre‐project ‐ student needed more background in chosen discipline 1 0.2% 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 138 capst admin ‐ negative research general 754 capstone process ‐ should provide a better research experience 3 0.5% 1 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 2 2 139 capst admin ‐ negative research quant 725 capstone process ‐ should emphasize more quantitative measures 1 0.2% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 140 capst admin ‐ negative resources access 757 resources ‐ library primary sources often not available 1 0.2% 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 141 capst admin ‐ negative resources equipment 759 resources ‐ insufficient access to printers 1 0.2% 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 142 capst admin ‐ negative resources model 765 resources ‐ department should make previous capstone projects available as models 1 0.2% 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 143 capst admin ‐ negative structure general 660 capstone idea does not work / should be discontinued 3 0.5% 1 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 2 144 capst admin ‐ negative structure general 730 capstone should be optional 5 0.8% 0 3 2 0 0 1 0 1 3 2 2 1 2 345 capst admin ‐ negative structure general 740 students should be allowed to default to comps 1 0.2% 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 046 capst admin ‐ negative structure general 742 there should be a creative writing capstone option offered 2 0.3% 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 247 capst admin ‐ negative structure competing commit 656 need better balance between capstone and other courses 3 0.5% 1 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 348 capst admin ‐ negative structure competing commit 658 capstone represents one of too many requirements 1 0.2% 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 049 capst admin ‐ negative structure competing commit 739 too many competing commitments (e.g., classes, extracurriculars, post‐graduate planning) 4 0.6% 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 2 2 2 2 0 1 350 capst admin ‐ negative structure departments 682 department capstone should be tailored to accommodate needs of different departments / majors 4 0.6% 0 4 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 3 0 1 1 351 capst admin ‐ negative structure departments 753 all departments should have same general structure for capstone 4 0.6% 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 3 0 1 352 capst admin ‐ negative structure flexibility 405 capstone structure not flexible enough 2 0.3% 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 153 capst admin ‐ negative structure flexibility 720 capstone structure needs to allow for time to prepare / apply for post‐grad plans 2 0.3% 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 254 capst admin ‐ negative structure focus 728 should focus more on process rather than product 3 0.5% 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 1 1 255 capst admin ‐ negative structure guidelines 398 did not have system of accountability to help meet goals (e.g., fixed deadlines) 3 0.5% 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 356 capst admin ‐ negative structure guidelines 675 capstone guidelines not clear 7 1.1% 0 1 2 1 3 0 1 0 6 2 2 3 2 557 capst admin ‐ negative structure organization 744 department needs to better organize the capstone program 8 1.2% 0 6 1 0 1 0 3 2 3 2 2 4 1 758 capst admin ‐ negative time excessive 378 capstone process ‐ too long 1 0.2% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 159 capst admin ‐ negative time excessive 389 capstone process ‐ too time consuming 3 0.5% 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 360 capst admin ‐ negative time guidelines 693 capstone process ‐ should emphasize time management and project pace 2 0.3% 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 261 capst admin ‐ negative time guidelines 738 capstone process ‐ students should be encouraged to finish data collection during previous term 1 0.2% 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 162 capst admin ‐ negative time insufficient 375 capstone should cover longer time frame (two terms) / should be started earlier 6 0.9% 1 2 3 0 0 0 3 1 2 1 2 3 2 463 capst admin ‐ negative time insufficient 404 capstone process ‐ not enough time 8 1.2% 5 2 1 0 0 2 4 1 1 1 3 4 2 664 capst admin ‐ negative time insufficient 664 capstone process ‐ should cover longer time frame (three terms) 3 0.5% 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 265 capst admin ‐ negative time organization 408 oral presentations took place too late in term 1 0.2% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 166 capst admin ‐ negative time organization 727 deadlines should be earlier but more flexible 1 0.2% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 167 capst admin ‐ negative time organization 761 students should finish capstones before graduation 1 0.2% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 068 capst admin ‐ negative time other 701 capstone topics should be chosen before the term in which capstones begin 2 0.3% 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 169 capst admin ‐ negative Total Comment regarding negative aspect(s) of administration of the capstone program 148 23.1% 35 58 37 7 10 23 42 32 51 40 55 53 33 11570 capst admin ‐ neutral structure departments 767 department capstone different from other departments / majors 2 0.3% 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 171 capst admin ‐ neutral structure other 678 student did capstone for minor instead of major 1 0.2% 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 172 capst admin ‐ neutral time competing commit 737 was fortunate to not have other classes during capstone term 2 0.3% 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 273 capst admin ‐ neutral Total Neutral comment regarding aspect(s) of administration of the capstone program 5 0.8% 2 2 1 0 0 0 3 2 0 1 2 2 1 474 capst admin ‐ positive class 377 capstone class ‐ helpful in facilitating peer collaboration 4 0.6% 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 3 0 1 3

2/22/2012

Part 5, Page: 57

line Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 ID Feature (Text code) Total % NS SS Hum Prof Self Red Tan Wht Yllw L M H M F75 capst admin ‐ positive fieldwork 527 community ‐ fieldwork ‐ work was very involved with community 1 0.2% 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 176 capst admin ‐ positive prep course 355 pre‐project ‐ junior sem was essential / helpful 3 0.5% 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 277 capst admin ‐ positive prep wellprep 186 pre‐project ‐ student was well prepared in general 1 0.2% 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 078 capst admin ‐ positive resources access 386 resources ‐ student had excellent workspace access at library 1 0.2% 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 179 capst admin ‐ positive structure general 732 do not make any changes to the capstone process/structure 2 0.3% 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 180 capst admin ‐ positive structure guidelines 365 capstone guidelines clear and helpful / good overall program structure 1 0.2% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 181 capst admin ‐ positive time other 671 liked having multiple (three) terms for capstone 1 0.2% 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 182 capst admin ‐ positive Total Comment regarding positive aspect(s) of administration of the capstone program 14 2.2% 3 4 5 2 0 2 3 3 6 2 9 3 4 1083 did not gain ‐ skills projmgt timeman 61 time management ‐ meeting deadlines 1 0.2% 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 184 did not gain ‐ skills Total Did not gained particular skill(s) 1 0.2% 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 185 experience ‐ negative general 680 experience ‐ negative ‐ general (overall poor) 2 0.3% 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 186 experience ‐ negative collab 722 experience ‐ negative ‐ collaboration ‐ meetings with others in field / other departments not helpfu 1 0.2% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 187 experience ‐ negative difficulty 528 experience ‐ difficulty / challenging ‐ general 11 1.7% 3 5 1 1 1 5 1 1 4 1 5 5 2 988 experience ‐ negative difficulty 716 experience ‐ difficulty ‐ more demanding than expected 2 0.3% 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 289 experience ‐ negative emotional 510 experience ‐ stressful 6 0.9% 1 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 5 3 0 3 1 590 experience ‐ negative emotional 708 experience ‐ post‐capstone anxiety 1 0.2% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 191 experience ‐ negative freedom direction 763 freedom ‐ did not have freedom to choose own topic 2 0.3% 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 192 experience ‐ negative freedom work 699 freedom ‐ was not encouraged to work creatively 2 0.3% 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 293 experience ‐ negative freedom work 674 freedom ‐ should be able to choose mentor 1 0.2% 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 094 experience ‐ negative mentor collab 477 mentor ‐ negative ‐ meetings were insufficient 2 0.3% 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 195 experience ‐ negative mentor collab 684 mentor ‐ negative ‐ not available 2 0.3% 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 296 experience ‐ negative mentor feedback 700 mentor ‐ negative ‐ need to include feedback from non‐mentors involved in project 1 0.2% 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 197 experience ‐ negative mentor helpful 466 mentor ‐ negative ‐ did not provide enough direction 4 0.6% 0 2 1 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 1 398 experience ‐ negative mentor helpful 685 mentor ‐ negative ‐ was not helpful ‐ writing process 1 0.2% 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 199 experience ‐ negative mentor other 464 mentor ‐ negative ‐ did not have one 1 0.2% 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1100 experience ‐ negative mentor other 471 mentor ‐ negative ‐ too many advisees 1 0.2% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0101 experience ‐ negative project timeman 213 time management ‐ started process / chose topic late; fell behind 1 0.2% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0102 experience ‐ negative value 673 experience ‐ no special benefits of capstone experience 2 0.3% 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 1103 experience ‐ negative Total Negative aspects of the student's capstone experience 43 6.7% 6 16 12 6 3 14 14 3 12 7 14 22 11 32104 experience ‐ positive general 484 experience ‐ positive ‐ general (overall positive) 36 5.6% 7 12 8 5 4 11 8 2 15 9 17 10 14 22105 experience ‐ positive general 710 experience ‐ positive ‐ best experience in college 3 0.5% 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 3106 experience ‐ positive general 764 experience ‐ positive ‐ not as bad as thought / others say 1 0.2% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1107 experience ‐ positive collab 517 experience ‐ positive ‐ collaboration ‐ working with peers 5 0.8% 2 0 3 0 0 1 1 0 3 3 2 0 0 5108 experience ‐ positive collab 627 experience ‐ positive ‐ collaboration ‐ making contacts in field / other departments 3 0.5% 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 1109 experience ‐ positive collab 659 experience ‐ positive ‐ collaboration ‐ getting to know other faculty in department 1 0.2% 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0110 experience ‐ positive communication 492 experience ‐ positive ‐ comm ‐ oral presentation not as bad as thought 1 0.2% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1111 experience ‐ positive communication 713 experience ‐ positive ‐ comm ‐ presenting and defending ideas 2 0.3% 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1112 experience ‐ positive emotional 733 experience ‐ glad did it 1 0.2% 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0113 experience ‐ positive freedom general 409 freedom ‐ enjoyed, general 5 0.8% 0 1 0 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 4114 experience ‐ positive freedom direction 410 freedom ‐ enjoyed, to choose own topic 2 0.3% 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 1115 experience ‐ positive freedom direction 416 freedom ‐ enjoyed, to direct course of project 2 0.3% 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1116 experience ‐ positive freedom work 411 freedom ‐ enjoyed, to work independently 2 0.3% 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1117 experience ‐ positive learning 489 experience ‐ learning 6 0.9% 4 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 4 1 3 2 3 3118 experience ‐ positive learning 497 experience ‐ knowledge ‐ within discipline 1 0.2% 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1119 experience ‐ positive learning 509 experience ‐ capstone was excellent learning environment 1 0.2% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0120 experience ‐ positive mentor general 422 mentor ‐ positive ‐ was great overall / great working with a mentor 5 0.8% 1 3 1 0 0 2 2 0 1 1 2 2 0 5121 experience ‐ positive mentor behavior 440 mentor ‐ positive ‐ was supportive 5 0.8% 0 0 3 1 1 0 3 0 2 0 1 4 2 3122 experience ‐ positive mentor collab 446 mentor ‐ positive ‐ was available 3 0.5% 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 3123 experience ‐ positive mentor collab 449 mentor ‐ positive ‐ discussed data 1 0.2% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0124 experience ‐ positive mentor collab 706 mentor ‐ positive ‐ excellent relationship with mentor will be valuable in future 2 0.3% 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0125 experience ‐ positive mentor encouraging 442 mentor ‐ positive ‐ was encouraging 1 0.2% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1126 experience ‐ positive mentor helpful 423 mentor ‐ positive ‐ was helpful ‐ general 9 1.4% 2 1 2 3 1 2 5 1 1 0 6 3 2 7127 experience ‐ positive mentor helpful 429 mentor ‐ positive ‐ was helpful ‐ academically 6 0.9% 1 1 4 0 0 0 4 0 2 3 1 2 4 2128 experience ‐ positive mentor interest 435 mentor ‐ positive ‐ was interested in topic/capstone 1 0.2% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1129 experience ‐ positive mentor interest 454 mentor ‐ positive ‐ was truly interested in student's success 2 0.3% 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1130 experience ‐ positive project 503 experience ‐ deadlines clear and helpful 2 0.3% 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 2131 experience ‐ positive project 495 experience ‐ completing large project 6 0.9% 0 2 3 0 1 3 1 0 2 3 1 2 3 3132 experience ‐ positive project 626 experience ‐ real world / field 4 0.6% 1 2 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 2 2 2 2133 experience ‐ positive project 486 experience ‐ research ‐ working in lab 1 0.2% 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1134 experience ‐ positive project 506 experience ‐ technical skills 2 0.3% 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2135 experience ‐ positive project 490 experience ‐ enjoyed topic 6 0.9% 2 2 1 0 1 4 0 0 2 1 2 3 1 5136 experience ‐ positive value 498 experience ‐ important 5 0.8% 3 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 2 3 1 4137 experience ‐ positive value 501 experience ‐ meaningful 5 0.8% 1 2 1 1 0 1 3 0 1 2 1 2 2 3138 experience ‐ positive value 504 experience ‐ worthwhile 7 1.1% 2 1 1 3 0 1 5 1 0 2 4 1 4 3139 experience ‐ positive value 505 experience ‐ rewarding 12 1.9% 4 5 3 0 0 4 3 1 4 0 8 4 2 10140 experience ‐ positive value 676 experience ‐ everyone would benefit from a capstone / it should be mandatory (or continue to be 20 3.1% 6 7 6 0 1 3 4 4 9 0 9 11 4 16141 experience ‐ positive value 686 experience ‐ more than just a regular paper/project 3 0.5% 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 2 1 2 1142 experience ‐ positive value 688 experience ‐ project had personal value 3 0.5% 0 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 2143 experience ‐ positive value 691 experience ‐ project was great way to cap off their college work 10 1.6% 3 2 4 1 0 3 2 1 4 0 3 7 3 7144 experience ‐ positive work 493 experience ‐ worked hard /diligently 3 0.5% 2 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 3145 experience ‐ positive Total Positive aspects of the student's capstone experience 196 30.5% 50 61 52 20 13 50 66 14 66 36 83 77 64 132146 gain ‐ disposition challenged 353 challenged self 3 0.5% 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 1 2 1147 gain ‐ disposition confidence general 156 self‐confidence ‐ general 1 0.2% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1148 gain ‐ disposition confidence academic 157 self‐confidence ‐ academic ‐ general 1 0.2% 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1149 gain ‐ disposition confidence academic 158 self‐confidence ‐ academic ‐ ability to do independent research 2 0.3% 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2150 gain ‐ disposition confidence academic 159 self‐confidence ‐ academic ‐ writing 1 0.2% 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1151 gain ‐ disposition confidence personal 762 self‐confidence ‐ personal ‐ entering work world 1 0.2% 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1152 gain ‐ disposition motiv project 196 disposition ‐ interest in project grew 3 0.5% 1 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 2 1 2153 gain ‐ disposition reflect reflect 168 self reflection 2 0.3% 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 1

2/22/2012

Part 5, Page: 58

line Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 ID Feature (Text code) Total % NS SS Hum Prof Self Red Tan Wht Yllw L M H M F154 gain ‐ disposition sense of accomplish accomplish 150 developed sense of accomplishment 8 1.2% 3 2 3 0 0 2 0 1 5 2 2 4 2 6155 gain ‐ disposition Total Improved particular disposition/behavior‐related trait(s) 22 3.4% 5 5 12 0 0 3 10 2 7 3 8 11 6 16156 gain ‐ knowledge general 190 knowledge ‐ intellectual growth 2 0.3% 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 1157 gain ‐ knowledge disc general 118 disciplinary knowledge ‐ general 1 0.2% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1158 gain ‐ knowledge disc practice 120 disciplinary knowledge ‐ learned ways of practice 5 0.8% 0 3 0 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 4159 gain ‐ knowledge disc project 123 disciplinary knowledge ‐ project area 1 0.2% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1160 gain ‐ knowledge disc thinking 121 disciplinary knowledge ‐ learned ways of thinking 1 0.2% 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1161 gain ‐ knowledge research 127 understanding ‐ research process 2 0.3% 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1162 gain ‐ knowledge self general 110 self‐understanding ‐ general 5 0.8% 0 2 3 0 0 4 1 0 0 1 3 1 2 3163 gain ‐ knowledge self abilities 113 self‐understanding ‐ of lack of quality in performance / mistakes ‐ general 1 0.2% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1164 gain ‐ knowledge self abilities 111 self‐understanding ‐ of own abilities 3 0.5% 0 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 2165 gain ‐ knowledge self abilities 721 self‐understanding ‐ of own abilities ‐ communication ‐ convey arguments 1 0.2% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1166 gain ‐ knowledge self abilities 346 self‐understanding ‐ of lack of quality in performance ‐ time management 1 0.2% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1167 gain ‐ knowledge self abilities 549 self‐understanding ‐ of own abilities ‐ complete major project 1 0.2% 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0168 gain ‐ knowledge self abilities 349 self‐understanding ‐ of own abilities ‐ research 1 0.2% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1169 gain ‐ knowledge self abilities 347 self‐understanding ‐ of own abilities ‐ writing 3 0.5% 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 3170 gain ‐ knowledge self interests 560 self‐understanding ‐ of interests ‐ academic 1 0.2% 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0171 gain ‐ knowledge value community 601 learned importance of work in community / social awareness 2 0.3% 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 2172 gain ‐ knowledge Total Gained knowledge in one or more areas 31 4.8% 4 17 7 3 0 18 7 1 5 7 14 10 8 23173 gain ‐ skills collab advisor 236 collab ‐ student developed close relationship with advisor 1 0.2% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0174 gain ‐ skills collab outside 105 collaboration skills ‐ making contacts in field 1 0.2% 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0175 gain ‐ skills comm oral 645 oral communication ‐ defend ideas/theories orally 2 0.3% 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 2176 gain ‐ skills comm writing 30 writing ‐ general 2 0.3% 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0177 gain ‐ skills projmgt general 56 project management ‐ general 1 0.2% 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1178 gain ‐ skills research general 284 research ‐ good quality 1 0.2% 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1179 gain ‐ skills research comp 5 computer skills ‐ general 1 0.2% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0180 gain ‐ skills research cond 3 research ‐ conducting ‐ lab skills 1 0.2% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0181 gain ‐ skills research cond 28 research methods ‐ general 1 0.2% 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1182 gain ‐ skills research quant 11 quantitative skills ‐ statistics 1 0.2% 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1183 gain ‐ skills Total Gained specific skill(s) 12 1.9% 4 5 1 2 0 8 2 1 1 1 2 9 6 6184 observations collab 644 getting input from others is valuable 2 0.3% 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 1185 observations disposition motivation 711 everyone has different motivations for their capstones 1 0.2% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0186 observations disposition self 734 capstone helps with self‐confidence ‐ academic 3 0.5% 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 3187 observations knowledge disc 736 capstone helps one become expert in discipline 3 0.5% 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 2 0 3188 observations knowledge self 747 capstone helps one learn about self 2 0.3% 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1189 observations knowledge self 723 capstone helps one learn about interests 2 0.3% 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 0190 observations knowledge self 724 capstone helps one learn about abilities 2 0.3% 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1191 observations mentor 756 capstone leads to strong relationship with a mentor 1 0.2% 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0192 observations prep 697 students who performed well prior to capstone will have successful capstone 1 0.2% 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1193 observations profdevel 745 capstone leads to high quality, graduate‐level work 1 0.2% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0194 observations profdevel 746 capstone experience results in practical, applied skills 2 0.3% 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 2195 observations projmgt 543 time management is important 17 2.6% 4 8 4 1 0 5 2 5 5 7 5 5 10 7196 observations projmgt 544 organization is important 5 0.8% 0 2 2 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 4 0 2 3197 observations projmgt 719 it is okay to start a project later 1 0.2% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0198 observations projmgt 735 capstone helps one learn project management skills 1 0.2% 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1199 observations value ‐ general 370 capstone is better than just a classroom experience 6 0.9% 2 4 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 1 1 4 3 3200 observations value ‐ general 689 capstone program was reason why came to this institution 1 0.2% 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1201 observations value ‐ general 702 capstone program sets student apart from those of other colleges 8 1.2% 4 0 3 0 1 5 0 0 3 1 5 2 4 4202 observations value ‐ general 707 shared experience of capstone program forges bond among students (and between students and a 3 0.5% 0 2 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 2203 observations value ‐ general 718 all schools should have a capstone 1 0.2% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1204 observations value ‐ indep 614 original research / owning work is valuable 1 0.2% 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1205 observations value ‐ indep 648 making decisions independently / thinking on one's own is important 2 0.3% 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2206 observations value ‐ indep 651 working independently / being self‐sufficient is important 3 0.5% 1 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 2 0 3207 observations value ‐ other 687 analyzing how capstone affects employment outcomes for grads would be valuable 1 0.2% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1208 observations value ‐ resources 694 librarians are valuable to capstone process 1 0.2% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0209 observations value ‐ topic 667 choosing topic within discipline that is relevant and current is valuable 1 0.2% 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1210 observations value ‐ topic 670 choosing own topic is valuable 1 0.2% 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1211 observations Total Observation regarding specific aspect(s) of the capstone program 73 11.4% 17 33 18 2 3 28 11 14 20 20 24 29 30 43212 other all positive 633 all aspects of capstone were positive/ valuable 5 0.8% 1 1 2 1 0 0 4 0 1 2 1 2 4 1213 other not sure 635 not sure / cannot yet say 1 0.2% 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1214 other Total Other 6 0.9% 2 1 2 1 0 0 5 0 1 2 2 2 4 2215 profdevel ‐ negative general 681 professional development ‐ did not help 1 0.2% 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1216 profdevel ‐ negative Total Did not help professional development 1 0.2% 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1217 profdevel ‐ positive general 169 professional development ‐ general 8 1.2% 1 1 1 4 1 1 4 0 3 1 5 2 3 5218 profdevel ‐ positive career 690 professional development ‐ knowledge of career options 1 0.2% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1219 profdevel ‐ positive funding 180 obtained funding for project 4 0.6% 1 2 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 1 1 2 2 2220 profdevel ‐ positive schoolprep 179 preparation for grad school/professional school 17 2.6% 6 5 4 0 2 6 4 0 7 4 4 9 7 10221 profdevel ‐ positive schoolprep 692 preparation for grad school/professional school ‐ experience writing a thesis 1 0.2% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0222 profdevel ‐ positive Total Helped professional development 31 4.8% 8 10 6 4 3 12 9 0 10 6 11 14 13 18223 Grand Total Grand Total 642 100.0% 148 243 168 49 33 186 181 81 194 154 244 244 202 440224

2/22/2012

Part 5, Page: 59

Table Q4-2: Summary Counts by Topic Please tell us about any other aspects of your capstone experience that might be helpful to our study of the benefits of capstones.

ALL BY MAJOR DIVISION BY SCHOOL BY GPA GROUP GENDERline Group 1 Feature (Text code) Total % NS SS Hum Prof Self Red Tan Wht Yllw L M H M F

15 advice ‐ oth students TotalAdvice from student to other students regarding specific aspects of the capstone process

59 9.2% 12 31 14 1 1 28 7 9 15 29 19 11 22 37

69 capst admin ‐ negative TotalComment regarding negative aspect(s) of administration of the capstone program

148 23.1% 35 58 37 7 10 23 42 32 51 40 55 53 33 115

73 capst admin ‐ neutral TotalNeutral comment regarding aspect(s) of administration of the capstone program

5 0.8% 2 2 1 0 0 0 3 2 0 1 2 2 1 4

82 capst admin ‐ positive TotalComment regarding positive aspect(s) of administration of the capstone program

14 2.2% 3 4 5 2 0 2 3 3 6 2 9 3 4 10

84 did not gain ‐ skills Total Did not gained particular skill(s) 1 0.2% 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1103 experience ‐ negative Total Negative aspects of the student's capstone experience 43 6.7% 6 16 12 6 3 14 14 3 12 7 14 22 11 32145 experience ‐ positive Total Positive aspects of the student's capstone experience 196 30.5% 50 61 52 20 13 50 66 14 66 36 83 77 64 132155 gain ‐ disposition Total Improved particular disposition/behavior‐related trait(s) 22 3.4% 5 5 12 0 0 3 10 2 7 3 8 11 6 16172 gain ‐ knowledge Total Gained knowledge in one or more areas 31 4.8% 4 17 7 3 0 18 7 1 5 7 14 10 8 23183 gain ‐ skills Total Gained specific skill(s) 12 1.9% 4 5 1 2 0 8 2 1 1 1 2 9 6 6

211 observations Total Observation regarding specific aspect(s) of the capstone program 73 11.4% 17 33 18 2 3 28 11 14 20 20 24 29 30 43

214 other Total Other 6 0.9% 2 1 2 1 0 0 5 0 1 2 2 2 4 2216 profdevel ‐ negative Total Did not help professional development 1 0.2% 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1222 profdevel ‐ positive Total Helped professional development 31 4.8% 8 10 6 4 3 12 9 0 10 6 11 14 13 18223 Grand Total Grand Total 642 100.0% 148 243 168 49 33 186 181 81 194 154 244 244 202 440

2/22/2012

Part 5, Page: 60

Table Q4-3: Summary Counts by Topic Please tell us about any other aspects of your capstone experience that might be helpful to our study of the benefits of capstones.The base for the percentages is the Grand Total for each respective column, so represents the relative frequency of occurance for each subgroup.

ALL BY MAJOR DIVISION BY SCHOOL BY GPA GROUP GENDERline Group 1 Feature (Text code) Total % NS SS Hum Prof Self Red Tan Wht Yllw L M H M F

15 advice ‐ oth students TotalAdvice from student to other students regarding specific aspects of the capstone process

59 9.2% 8.1% 12.8% 8.3% 2.0% 3.0% 15.1% 3.9% 11.1% 7.7% 18.8% 7.8% 4.5% 10.9% 8.4%

69 capst admin ‐ negative TotalComment regarding negative aspect(s) of administration of the capstone program

148 23.1% 23.6% 23.9% 22.0% 14.3% 30.3% 12.4% 23.2% 39.5% 26.3% 26.0% 22.5% 21.7% 16.3% 26.1%

73 capst admin ‐ neutral TotalNeutral comment regarding aspect(s) of administration of the capstone program

5 0.8% 1.4% 0.8% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 2.5% 0.0% 0.6% 0.8% 0.8% 0.5% 0.9%

82 capst admin ‐ positive TotalComment regarding positive aspect(s) of administration of the capstone program

14 2.2% 2.0% 1.6% 3.0% 4.1% 0.0% 1.1% 1.7% 3.7% 3.1% 1.3% 3.7% 1.2% 2.0% 2.3%

84 did not gain ‐ skills Total Did not gained particular skill(s) 1 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%

103 experience ‐ negative TotalNegative aspects of the student's capstone experience

43 6.7% 4.1% 6.6% 7.1% 12.2% 9.1% 7.5% 7.7% 3.7% 6.2% 4.5% 5.7% 9.0% 5.4% 7.3%

145 experience ‐ positive TotalPositive aspects of the student's capstone experience

196 30.5% 33.8% 25.1% 31.0% 40.8% 39.4% 26.9% 36.5% 17.3% 34.0% 23.4% 34.0% 31.6% 31.7% 30.0%

155 gain ‐ disposition TotalImproved particular disposition/behavior‐related trait(s)

22 3.4% 3.4% 2.1% 7.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 5.5% 2.5% 3.6% 1.9% 3.3% 4.5% 3.0% 3.6%

172 gain ‐ knowledge Total Gained knowledge in one or more areas 31 4.8% 2.7% 7.0% 4.2% 6.1% 0.0% 9.7% 3.9% 1.2% 2.6% 4.5% 5.7% 4.1% 4.0% 5.2%

183 gain ‐ skills Total Gained specific skill(s) 12 1.9% 2.7% 2.1% 0.6% 4.1% 0.0% 4.3% 1.1% 1.2% 0.5% 0.6% 0.8% 3.7% 3.0% 1.4%

211 observations TotalObservation regarding specific aspect(s) of the capstone program

73 11.4% 11.5% 13.6% 10.7% 4.1% 9.1% 15.1% 6.1% 17.3% 10.3% 13.0% 9.8% 11.9% 14.9% 9.8%

214 other Total Other 6 0.9% 1.4% 0.4% 1.2% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.8% 0.0% 0.5% 1.3% 0.8% 0.8% 2.0% 0.5%

216 profdevel ‐ negative Total Did not help professional development 1 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.2%

222 profdevel ‐ positive Total Helped professional development 31 4.8% 5.4% 4.1% 3.6% 8.2% 9.1% 6.5% 5.0% 0.0% 5.2% 3.9% 4.5% 5.7% 6.4% 4.1%223 Grand Total Grand Total 642 100.0% 148 243 168 49 33 186 181 81 194 154 244 244 202 440

2/22/2012

Part 5, Page: 61

PART 6: MENTOR POST‐CAPSTONE SURVEY COMMENTS

This is an analysis of responses to the open‐ended questions on the post‐capstone survey of faculty mentoring capstones in academic years 2009/10 and 2010/11. The tables are based on the counts after deconstructing the comments into topical coded units.

Narrative – Analysis of Mentor Responses to the Post‐capstone Open‐Ended Questions

Tables of Counts of Topical Units

Question 1: “Please describe any notable positive or negative aspects of this capstone for you as the mentor.”

• Table Mentor Q1‐ 1: Detailed Tally by Topic • Table Mentor Q1‐ 2: Summary of Tally of Mentor Comments by Topic Group

Question 2: “Please note any particularly significant benefits you think the student gained from this capstone.”

• Table Mentor Q2 – 1: Detailed Tally to Topic • Table Mentor Q2 – 2: Summary Counts by Topic Group • Table Mentor Q2 – 3: Percents of Responses by Topic Group

Question 4: “Please describe areas where the student was exceptionally well prepared for this capstone. Please describe areas where the student should have been prepared better for this capstone.”

• Table Mentor Q3 – 1: Detailed Tally to Topic • Table Mentor Q3 – 2: Summary Counts by Topic Group • Table Mentor Q3 – 3: Percents of Responses by Topic Group

Question 4: “Please share any other observations about this capstone that you think may be of interest to this study.”

• Table Mentor Q4 – 1: Detailed Tally to Topic

Part 6, Page: 1

blank page

Part 6, Page: 2

Analysis of Mentor Responses to the Post‐Capstone Open‐Ended Questions Introduction – Questions and Table Descriptions

These are notes, with accompanying tables, for use by the campus steering committees in preparation of our final report and other project products.

The open‐ended questions for mentors were:

• Mentor Q1: Please describe any notable positive or negative aspects of this capstone experience for you as the mentor.

• Mentor Q2: Please note any particularly significant benefits you think the student gained from this capstone.

• Mentor Q3: Please describe areas where the student was exceptionally well prepared. Please describe areas where the student should have been better prepared for this capstone.

• Mentor Q4: Please share any other observations you have about this capstone you think may be of interest to the study.

As for the student open‐ended questions, the comments were deconstructed into discrete topical coding units and grouped into a hierarchical structure deemed useful for our research questions, as seen in the accompanying tables. A single comment might be deconstructed into as many as five topical units. The appended tables are labeled by the question numbers indicated above and, depending on the question, include a table giving a detailed tally of the comments by coding unit, a summary table with the tallies aggregated by a larger subgroup in the topical hierarchy, and a summary table that converts the counts to a percentage of the counts in each category for each subgroup of students. The percentages are useful, for example, to compare whether the mentors for students in one major are more likely to comment on a topic than the mentors for students in another major.

********************

Question 1: “Please describe any notable positive or negative aspects of this capstone experience for you as the mentor.”

In 2009‐10, Q1 appeared as shown above. In 2010‐11, it was split into two questions so that students responded for the positive and negative areas separately.

Overall response rates. The preponderance of comments was on the positive side. Of the 1,923 coded units, 1,165 (61%) had a positive sense, while 758 (39%) were negative. Although the preponderance of comments was positive, it should be noted that the number of negative comments was substantial.

Categorization of comments. The comments were wide‐ranging with 245 discrete units identified. The tables tally the comments based on categorical groups that are, hopefully, useful for our research questions. The “Focus” category indicates whether the comment focused primarily on the mentor, the student, or the project. Table Mentor Q1‐1 gives the detailed tally for each coded unit and Table Mentor Q1‐2 summarizes the counts at the level of Group 2.

Focus of the comments. Mentors viewed their own experience primarily through the lens of their relationship with the student and the development and success of the student and the project. Indeed, only 33% of the comments were explicitly about the mentor’s own experience of the capstone, with 54% focused on the student and 6% focused on the capstone product.

Part 6, Page: 3

Table 1: Focus of Mentor comments

Focus

Positive Col % Negative Col % Total Col % % Pos

mentor 440 38% 201 27% 641 33% 69%

student 616 53% 427 56% 1043 54% 59%

project 86 7% 28 4% 114 6% 75%

None to report 23 2% 102 13% 125 7%

Total 1165 100% 758 100% 1923 100% 61% Comments focusing on students. Of the comments concerning the student, the most frequent areas of comment are shown in Table 2. Again, while the preponderance of comments for these major areas is positive, there appears to be a significant percentage of capstones that engender negative comments. The major problem areas mentors reported are with project management, motivation, and failing to attend meetings or use feedback. The implications of this are that students may need more preparatory experiences or training in managing a large project, and that mentors and students may need better guidelines or more explicit expectations on how to structure their interactions during the capstone. This is complicated by the expectation that the student should conduct the capstone with a great deal of independence, but the student may still need structured mentor supervision and feedback.

Table 2: Mentor comments focusing on students

Most frequent comments about students

Positive Negative Total % Pos

Good project management by student 122 115 237 51% Good motivation/work ethic 174 59 233 75%

Worked well with mentor ‐using feedback, attending meetings 32 90 122 26% Student developed academically 96 10 106 91% Had academic abilities needed for capstone 46 38 84 55% Performed with good writing, oral communication skills 13 32 45 29% Performed with good research skills 21 17 38 55% Performed with good critical thinking skills 20 10 30 67%

Sum for cited items: 524 371 895 59% Comments focusing on the mentoring experience. As noted in Table 1, about 33% of the comments concerned the mentor’s own experience. Of these, 69% were positive and 31% were negative.

What positives did mentors see for their capstone mentoring experience?

• Enjoyment of working one‐on‐one with students: exchanging ideas, seeing projects and students develop, working with a student that was particularly capable or motivated as a colleague.

• Leaning about the topic of the student’s project, in some cases because it contributed to their own research interest, but more frequently because it was simply of interest or intellectually stimulating. Some found it valuable when the topic was outside their area of expertise, but others noted the extra work required in these cases. A very small number of comments

Part 6, Page: 4

complained about repeatedly supervising capstones on the same topic (e.g. Hitler or the Civil War).

• Improving their teaching, mentoring, or advising skills as a result of the closer relationship with the student that enabled personalizing their approach and observing and analyzing the results.

• Making new professional contacts as a result of working with a project outside their normal scholarly niche.

• Working on a project that had a successful outcome in meeting or exceeding expectations in terms of design, ideas, originality, results, or general quality.

What negatives did mentors see for their mentoring experience?

• Frustrations working with students who are unmotivated, or who have weak skills in writing, critical thinking, project management, or research.

• Students who missed meetings with the mentor.

• Students who didn’t respond to feedback, particularly ignoring comments on drafts of papers.

• Students who delayed starting on their project or didn’t meet project deadlines.

• Students who couldn’t work independently and needed to be micromanaged.

• Students who generally underperformed.

• Co‐advising problems – Several negative remarks related to difficulties stemming from co‐advising, for example a project for a double major, or the students being off‐campus and working with an adviser from another institution. All but one of the 25 comments relating to co‐advising a project was negative.

• Support problems – There were a small number of reports of support issues with equipment, software, administrative support, etc.

• The workload – A relatively small number of responses, 17, related explicitly to the workload as an onerous addition to other duties. Another 22 comments noted the extra work of advising a capstone that was outside their area of expertise, and these might also be taken as negative comments relating to workload.

In summary, major factors in how mentors view their experience with the capstone include how well the student performed relative to their expectations, and how well the mentor and student collaborated. The length, scale, and high expectations for capstone projects, as well as the need for students to work independently, tend to expose and amplify issues with student preparation, skills, and work ethic. The capstone enables many students to shine, and mentors find this an enjoyable and highly rewarding experience. Other students struggle, due to lack of motivation, preparation or abilities, and mentors find this frustrating.

Sample mentor remarks:

Positive aspects:

I observed that [the student] blossomed in terms of her writing skills and even her intellectually approach during the course of her capstone research. She was a pleasure to work with ‐ not an extremely strong student, but one who really responded to suggestions and advice.

This student was able to explain some anomalous results in an earlier scientific project through a very well constructed series of experiments.

Part 6, Page: 5

Student used his experience to obtain a graduate level position doing very similar research, a great positive in my book!

[This student] is a superstar with respect to I.S. She was able to work independently, take complete ownership of her project, effectively manage her time, and analyze her results. This mentoring relationship really felt more like a colleague/colleague relationship which was wonderful.

The enthusiasm that this student developed for research during this experience was great to watch. She is now planning to pursue a PhD in biochemistry.

This student experienced more growth through this process than any other student I have mentored. It is gratifying to see a weaker student begin to synthesize the knowledge from various courses, and to achieve success through hard work.

I really enjoyed this project. The student was incredibly engaged and we had a lot of fun discussing her ideas. I watched her writing go from being very weak to quite strong. She took ownership of the project and did a great job.

It is satisfying to observe our students making connections and tying together the knowledge from different courses as they study for the comprehensive exams. They graduate with a strong grounding in economic theory and its applications because of the comprehensive nature of the tests and the preparation for them.

Wonderful to see the student grew in confidence and understanding of methods and limitations of research.

The chosen topic was an application of mathematics to an area where I had no experience. I learned as much as the student and learned it almost completely through her explanations.

A positive aspect was observing the student's willingness to take creative risks while applying directives learned in interdisciplinary study. She did not just repeat material studied in class but created an opportunity for herself to try something original.

I came to understand a body of knowledge that I had little experience in before her study.

This was my first opportunity to work with this student on a project that stretched him to work far beyond what he thought he could do. He was surprised at what he was able to accomplish and proud of the result.

It made me think of an interesting problem that I plan to study in greater depth.

All the way through the process it was a delight to work with this student, who was so disciplined, organized, self‐ motivated, and responsive to my suggestions and comments.

This is another example of a student who never thought she could pull off such a project successfully, and yet she applied herself and did a good job. I was very gratified by that, and it reinforced my evaluation of the senior project as a very good learning experience.

[This student] came into the experience as an accomplished writer, communicator and analytical thinker with a lot of intellectual curiosity. He left just a enthusiastic and it was fun to work with him as a colleague.

[This student] achieved some intellectual thinking/work in this project that I didn't think possible. I saw her flourish intellectually and take ownership of the project.

Seeing the student take charge of the project and competently research a current and very relevant topic was a joy. I also enjoyed seeing the student integrate two disciplinary perspectives as he is a double major, and do so with skill and ease.

Part 6, Page: 6

I knew nothing about the topic, and this is often the case in the History and International Studies program. I very much enjoyed working with the student and guiding an original piece of work to completion.

Negative aspects:

This student had a poor work ethic and had to be constantly prodded (to the point of threatening a failing grade) to pursue the project. The result was mediocre work, barely meeting the standard for the lowest passing mark. Advising a student who takes little initiative is an exhausting process!

This student did not communicate well with me, did not submit drafts of work in progress, and missed too many of our scheduled meetings. While he did turn in drafts at both main deadlines to the department, the drafts were not cogent, cohesive, nor did a definitive thesis emerge by the end of the process.

Student definitely did not want to do the project. In the final paper, the student even said I realize now I don't want to do this major "in the real world." This was obvious while pushing the student to complete the project. Makes the hours spent together much more difficult.

This student was simply not prepared to design, conduct and write a senior thesis. It was as if she had not been exposed to the theory and methods of anthropology. She showed little interest in conducting research, and consistently prioritized other events over this project.

Getting drafts completed on time was a problem at times.

Having four senior theses is quite a bit of work: every bit equal to having an additional class to teach.

This was a struggle... this student showed exceptional academic and intellectual skills in coursework, but that did not turn out to be an adequate predictor of just how much mentoring needed. I underestimated how much direction she needed. When faced with a project all her own she became hamstrung. I intend to modify my SCE expectations and advising/mentoring process in the future to avoid reoccurrence of this scenario.

This was a very bright student who unfortunately needed constant attention and nagging because he was late for every deadline except the final submission date. That deadline was met only through a lot of extra time spent with me during the week preceding that date.

Capable student but often refused to put in the time and effort to actually get things done. Makes this frustrating.

I learned to more closely monitor students who say they're on track but aren't sharing any "product". This student consistently missed deadlines, did not respond well to feedback until the latest stages when it was clear she may not graduate. My time with her was very inconsistent due to her lack of momentum and failure to comply with deadlines and editorial requests. She graduated only because I was willing to read through 6 drafts of her thesis in the last five days prior to the CSE deadline to address major flaws in her argumentation and misuse of social theory.

An integrated capstone for a double major. Not very successful. Both advisors were frustrated. This experience has made me a bit more skeptical of letting mediocre students do integrated capstones.

This was a frustrating experience. The student displayed very poor time management and did very little with the feedback that was provided.

Lack of time management on the part of the student was frustrating. A good idea was not seen through as thoroughly as I would have hoped.

When I have multiple students that are working on multiple independent yet unrelated projects, it becomes difficult to manage all of the teaching of experimental techniques that is required. I could try to

Part 6, Page: 7

steer all of my students to only the project that I want/need them to work on, but I feel like this defeats the process of independent study.

The student is not one of our strongest… I micromanaged the writing process.

Student was MIA until the very end. No rough drafts, no communication, no input from the professor.

Student did not follow up on corrections to manuscript nor did she effectively pursue suggestions for conception or research.

The student needs to work on time management and organization. He was definitely enthusiastic about his work but had trouble staying focused.

This student is an example of why all students should not be required to complete the comp. This was excruciating. Her approach to data collection was sloppy, analysis was uninformed, she seemed incapable of identifying her weaknesses….

Question 2: “Please note any particularly significant benefits you think the student gained from this capstone.”

Overall response rate. Since this question asked about “particularly significant” benefits, we expect that mentors concentrated only on the major benefits they observed. An unintended consequence of this phrasing, however, is that it is difficult to interpret the absence of a response; does a blank response mean that the mentor saw no significant benefit, or did they just skip the question? If we adjust the pool of surveys to remove those where the mentor left blank all open ended responses, a student benefit was cited for 572 of 1,126 capstones, or 51%.

Tally of responses by topic and student subgroup. Tables Mentor Q2 ‐1 to Mentor Q2 ‐3 (appended to this document) indicate the counts of comments by topical coding units developed empirically to categorize the comments. In the tables, Group 1 divides the benefits into skills, knowledge, and dispositions, in a manner loosely based on Bloom’s taxonomy. The assignment of the coding unit as a skill, knowledge, or disposition was determined as the coding units were developed from reading the original comments. To illustrate, the classification system would categorize learning a laboratory technique as developing a research skill; broadly understanding the research process would be classified as knowledge; and developing an interest in doing research would be classified as a disposition. Finally, there were several observations that did not fit into this scheme that related to an additional category of “professional development”. The tallies are given overall and are also broken down by the division of the capstone major, by school, and by high, middle, and low groupings of the final college GPA. The tables present the data in various formats:

• Table Mentor Q2‐1 – gives the tally at the greatest detail, that of Group 1 • Table Mentor Q2‐2 – subtotals the counts at the level of Group 2 • Table Mentor Q2‐3 – converts the counts in Table 2 to the column percentage for each student

subgroup

Student Benefits. The benefits cited by mentors form a broad spectrum that goes well beyond simply gaining more disciplinary knowledge. Indeed, disciplinary knowledge accounts for only about 3% of the comments.

Part 6, Page: 8

Distinctive benefits of capstones. Many of the benefits cited seem to be directly related to components of a capstone experience involving a major research or creative project, as distinguished from the work typically done in a standard upper division course:

• Managing a large project, with the accompanying needs for planning, organization, and time management.

• Working independently with minimal day‐to‐day supervision. • Doing original research, whether as a new contribution to knowledge or as new to the student,

with the excitement and challenges of discovery, the need to analyze data or research literature, and the need to synthesize the results into a cohesive argument.

• Pursuing a topic in depth that is of particular interest to the student and one for which they can take ownership.

• Presenting the project results through a major paper and/or oral presentation. This hones writing, critical thinking, and presentation skills in a unique way as the student develops his/her own analysis and viewpoint on the topic and presents it in a coherent manner appropriate to the style an theoretical structures of the discipline. It gives the student an experience of being the “expert” on his or her topic.

• In some cases, integrating knowledge from multiple disciplines.

Academic skills development. The mentor’s comments note enhancement of a number of the general benefits of a college education – development of writing or oral presentation skills (11%) and critical thinking skills (13%) in particular. But the capstone experience may develop these skills in an unusually powerful way. Comments suggest that a capstone experience develops these particularly well because the typical capstone project’s scale is much greater than the usual work of a course, and because students explore a topic at a depth and with an independence not seen in most courses. Often capstone papers go through multiple revisions with mentor feedback and the results are prepared for celebrations of learning, conferences or publication. Critical thinking skills are developed as students move through searching and analyzing related literature, designing a research protocol, analyzing data, and synthesizing and arguing a major thesis. Research skills and motivation development. 10% of comments concerned development of specific research related skills – conducting literature searches, designing and conducting research, quantitative or qualitative analysis of data, laboratory skills, etc. 3% of comments reported an increase in technical skills related to research, and 4% reported an increase in the student’s motivation toward research or pursuing their capstone project. Project management benefits. Approximately 15% of the comments noted development of project management skills, the largest percentage among the Group 2 categories. For many students the capstone experience constitutes the largest academic project they have undertaken, making the capstone an important opportunity to develop planning, organizational, and time management skills. In combination with the results for a question about student preparation, for which mentors often noted that students came in poorly prepared to manage a large project, it would seem that capstones present an advising challenge – structuring the capstone in a way that balances the need for independence, while providing scaffolding such as deadlines, project goals, and feedback to ensure the student doesn’t flounder. The prominence of this topic in the comments indicates that mentors should pay considerable attention to how the capstone project is structured. That most students develop in this area may be a particularly significant and distinguishing benefit of the capstone experience.

Part 6, Page: 9

Self‐development benefits. A variety of benefits cited are related to self‐discovery, personal development, or “self‐authorship”. 13% noted a gain in self‐confidence; 9% noted a gain in self‐understanding of abilities and interests; 4% reported a gain in an interest in doing research or writing or critical thinking; 3% reported development of a more mature approach to project behaviors – patience, perseverance, and taking responsibility. Many students begin the capstone apprehensive about their ability to successfully complete a significant long term project, and end confident that they can achieve more than they thought.

Professional development benefits. 7% of the comments about benefits concerned an area of professional development for graduate school or employment. These ranged from a simple statement that the student developed professionally or was better prepared for graduate or professional school, to the capstone leading directly to a job offer. Students were able to include their capstone work in an application portfolio, make professional contacts through conference attendance, gain recognition through presentations or publications, get better references from their mentors, or, in one case, start their own business.

Disciplinary knowledge. While gaining additional disciplinary content knowledge is certainly a benefit of most capstones, this was mentioned explicitly in only 38 comments (3%), as faculty concentrated on the more general benefits noted above.

Summary. The mentors’ comments describe a wide and varied range of benefits from specific academic skills to areas of personal and professional development, including an emphasis on building project management skills, self‐confidence, and an interest in doing research. Moreover, although any standard course might promote similar benefits, the mosaic of benefits cited is arguably directly related to distinctive characteristics of the capstone experience in that a student is expected to engage in an independent, large scale project of research or inquiry.

Sample comments from mentors:

The student emerged much more self‐aware, better at time management and with a greater respect for the process of creative‐collaboration. Her writing started out quite shaky and improved by the final paper/presentation. Lastly, her confidence and clarity of ideas improved.

Commitment to a long term project and seeing it through.

I really saw him gain greatly in his confidence and sense of empowerment. He always knew that he was smart and, with the completion of his IS, he recognized that he had lived up to those expectations.

The project was very important in helping the student focus his wide array of ideas. There were challenges in terms of organizing and developing these ideas, and the fact that he was able finally to put everything together was very important.

She developed confidence in her ability to plan, manage and complete a large project; she was able to pursue a topic about which she is passionate; she read widely and developed an original argument about a little‐known topic.

I think he learned a tough lesson in procrastinating. I think he got a great research experience.

This project linked his two majors of business finance and psychology

He learned that he could complete a project even though it seemed impossible at times.

There were several complications where experimental methods had to be changed during the course of the studies and the student coped well with searching out and carrying out new methods based upon literature precedence.

He wrote a novel, the novel he'd been wanting to write for years.

Part 6, Page: 10

She took total responsibility for this project, garnering appropriate funding and demonstrating its feasibility. There is a good possibility that her work will be published and will lead to a long term useful methods for my future research students. She enhanced her confidence in contacting other researchers and technical support people to get her questions answered.

Some insight in the importance of not giving up and trying to see what good can be obtained from a bad situation. Perhaps some recognition into taking more responsibility for her future.

Although this student has a nearly perfect GPA, she is rather quiet in class. She is not shy, and I do think she is confident in her abilities, but I think this capstone experience has helped her realize that she has tremendous academic potential. She has yet to decide what direction she will pursue after graduation, but I think this experience may cause her to seriously consider graduate school. … I think the student realizes she has this potential to clearly grasp and articulate some rather difficult concepts.

She found her voice (in terms of writing). She learned to synthesize theory and data. She gained confidence.

She learned that lab work is not her forte nor her interests.

Confidence in original research; improved writing; stronger analytical abilities; good practice in oral communication: three separate conference presentations; showed thesis to graduate schools and impressed them.

Understanding that he CAN do research ‐ graduate school acceptance with support based on IS work

Real confidence in handling a challenging topic

Learning to think and work like an artist; understanding more deeply how artists think about and evolve ideas.

This student found that she was much more capable of research than she thought and that she liked it quite a bit.

The student made a great deal of effort in his analytical thinking and it was also the biggest project he had to do in terms of writing. He did indeed grow tremendously having done it and done it quite well.

She gained a great sense of accomplishment.

More aware of what it takes to do a major project from conception to communication.

The student learned to summarize pertinent material effectively and to weigh and analyze arguments. She learned how to defend her opinion against conflicting views, and yet was able to concede that her position was not necessarily one that everyone would

This student collected and analyzed her own data. This is a critical skill that would not otherwise have been available to her. It also allowed her to pursue deeply a social issue that has had a significant effect on her own life.

Being able to see an independent project through from start to finish and take ownership of it

She was really excited about her work and now wants to do more research

She learned a host of applicable techniques and procedures, all of which helped her obtain a fabulous job working in a military defense laboratory, starting immediately after graduation. She also learned effective time management, trouble‐shooting procedures, and how to run a project from conception to conclusion.

Writing a large thesis improved her writing skills, and an attempt to organize and synthesize a large number of ideas was a good exercise for her.

Part 6, Page: 11

She did develop more confidence, and she learned to organize her ideas more effectively. She also loved her topic, developed original ideas about it, and articulated those ideas clearly and with passion.

Question 3: “Please describe areas where the student was exceptionally well prepared.” and “Please describe areas where the student should have been better prepared for this capstone”

The responses to these questions were broken down into discrete units and tallied into a hierarchy of topical areas as reported in Tables Mentor Q3‐1 to Mentor Q3‐3 below:

• Table Mentor Q3‐1 – a detailed tally of comments with subtotals at the Group 1 level. • Table Mentor Q3‐2 – a summary tally of comments at the Group 1 level • Table Mentor Q3‐3 – the column percentages at the Group 1 level for each student subgroup

The counts and percentages are given in these tables overall and broken down by capstone major, school, college GPA group, and gender.

Overall response rates. For the majority of the 1,126 mentor surveys, no comment was made either way. There were comments of a deficiency in preparation for 362 capstones (33% of capstones), and of exceptional preparation for 446 capstones (about 40% of capstones).

Table 3 summarizes the overall tally of comments by major topical groups, sorted in descending order to the total count for the various topics. The percentages in the table are based on the counts of comments made. Since, as noted above, no comments were made for the majority of capstones and some comments may have been counted under more than one coding unit, the column percents in the table indicate the relative prominence of areas of comment but not the percentage of capstones in each category.

Table 3: Mentor comments on student preparation Deficient Exceptional Total

Tally of Preparation Comments N Col % N Col % Total Col % % exceptional

(by row) Communication skills ‐ general, written, oral 155 20% 222 20% 377 20% 58.9% Disciplinary knowledge, theory, and ways of thinking

120 16% 215 20% 335 18% 64.2%

Personal skills and attributes: work ethic, motivation, time management, independence

66 9% 183 17% 249 13% 73.5%

Research skills: design, conducting, analysis 97 13% 125 11% 222 12% 56.3%

Project management skills: planning, organization, setting goals, working independently

111 15% 93 8% 204 11% 45.6%

Critical Thinking Skills 95 12% 108 10% 203 11% 53.2% Literature review skills: conducting, locating sources, writing up

49 6% 72 7% 121 6% 59.5%

Quantitative reasoning skills 38 5% 44 4% 82 4% 53.7% Collaboration skills: attending meetings, following directions, responding to feedback

29 4% 21 2% 50 3% 42.0%

Well prepared in general 2 0% 19 2% 21 1% 90.5% Total: 762 100% 1102 100% 1864 100% 59.1%

Part 6, Page: 12

Remarks:

Overall tally. Exceptional preparation codings were more prominent, at 59% of the total. However, that 41% of the comments are negative and six of the ten areas have as many or more negative comments as positive suggests that there is room for improvement on each campus.

Communication skills. Writing skill is the most commented on preparation area, likely because it is the most common skill requirement. Mentors seem to find it particularly frustrating to deal with students with poor writing skills. Communication skills in general drew the most comments overall, 20%, with most of them about writing, and with oral communication a distant second. (The proportion of capstones involving writing is likely much larger than the proportion with an oral presentation.) About 60% of the comments about communications skills were on the exceptional side. The range of subareas of writing cited as deficient most often included mechanics ‐ including citation styles, clarity, organization, stylistic appropriateness, and knowing how to write a long research paper.

Disciplinary preparation. Disciplinary preparation drew 18% of the comments. Comments tilted toward the exceptional side with regard to disciplinary knowledge as learned from general courses, and also learned specifically in preparation for the specific capstone topic, as from particular precursor courses in the major or the student’s own preparation. Comments were predominantly negative, however, as to understanding the theoretical foundations of the discipline, and this may make the capstone particularly challenging for some students. Skills that are specific to a discipline, such as laboratory skills, seem to be an area where students are receiving generally good preparation.

Project and time management. This area drew 15% of the comments. Notably for this area, the preponderance of the comments indicated a deficiency (54%). The main complaint was students not managing their time to complete the project. A lack of pre‐project planning and inability to organize the project were also noted.

Student personal attributes. The personal skills and attributes of students drew 13% of the comments. On the positive side, the majority of comments were favorable for perseverance, work ethic, motivation for the project/research and independence.

Critical thinking. Overall, critical thinking skills drew 11% of the comments, with 53% exceptional. Although exceptional comments dominated overall, deficiencies dominated in the sub‐areas of argumentation and applying principles and theory.

Quantitative skills. Quantitative skills drew 5% of the comments, mostly in the natural and social sciences. A deficiency in statistics was noted for 20 capstones (with 10 exceptional), which is probably a fairly low percentage of the capstones where statistical methods are needed.

Critical thinking. Overall, critical thinking skills drew 11% of the comments, with 53% of those being exceptional. Although exceptional comments dominated overall, deficiencies dominated in the sub‐areas of argumentation and applying principles and theory.

Quantitative skills. Quantitative skills drew 5% of the comments, mostly in the natural and social sciences. A deficiency in statistics was noted for 20 capstones (10 exceptional), which is probably a fairly low percentage of the capstones where statistical methods are needed.

Research skills. Preparation for conducting research drew 12% of the comments, with 56% of those indicating exceptional preparation.

Part 6, Page: 13

Literature searches. Conducting literature searches drew 6% of the comments, with 40% of those indicating a deficiency. Locating sources was the specific area drawing the most deficient comments (9). Many reports of deficiencies in this area relate to technical skills that might be taught easily in a

Collaboration skills. These items relate to working with others as part of a research project. The principle deficiency cited was a failure to pursue help that would advance the project, such as by working well with the advisor, librarians, or reading writing center staff.

Please refer to Tables Mentor Q3‐1 to 3 for break downs of the tallies by major, school, GPA group and gender.

Summary observations:

The results are mostly encouraging, but with some concerns. Clearly mentors are advising a significant proportion of seniors that have areas of deficient preparation, as well as exceptional preparation. A significant benefit of capstone programs may be that through close mentoring faculty become aware of how well the curriculum is preparing students for major academic projects. Systematically gathering this feedback could be a useful assessment tool.

The capstone exposes deficiencies in writing, close reading, and critical thinking skills that might be addressed better in the general education portion of the curriculum. Disciplinary courses may need to emphasize theoretical structures more. Training in conducting literature searches may need more attention before the capstone, perhaps in conjunction with library staff, since locating sources seems to be an issue. Students might generally benefit from more experiences in prior course work that involves applying both background disciplinary knowledge and theory to real‐world problems, gathering, analyzing, synthesizing, and presenting their own data, and writing longer papers.

The capstone poses new challenges for many students in terms of conducting a large independent project. Mentor’s comments suggest a need for many students to have better preparation in project management skills needed for a large and sustained project, such as planning objectives, organizing the flow of activities, creating a timeline with deadlines, etc. Specific training in time management skills might be needed for some students, and all might benefit from a more intentional effort to develop these skills through pre‐capstone experiences.

For some students, the capstone exposes weaknesses in student personal attributes, such as work ethic, academic motivation, persistence, or ability to work independently. Students’ lack of motivation for their capstone project might be addressed, in part, by selecting structures for the capstone topic that allow or encourage students to explore options for projects of personal interest. The four colleges have decided to make a capstone experience a universal graduation requirement rather than an elective or honors experience. Even though it would appear most students are well prepared to do excellent work during a capstone, the mentor’s remarks on preparation indicate that, in a not inconsiderable number of cases, mentors are challenged by the need to work with students who have insufficient academic skills, are inexperienced with managing a large scale project, can’t work as independently as expected, or don’t have sufficient motivation. This is, perhaps, inevitable for a universal requirement, but requiring a universal senior capstone presents additional preparation issues for the curriculum leading up to the capstone and for mentor training in dealing with the underprepared or less motivated students.

Part 6, Page: 14

Sample Mentor Comments on Exceptional Preparation:

This student had excellent writing skills and critical thinking skills already and was strong and comfortable with oral presentations.

She is an excellent writer.

She had the work ethic to accomplish this project.

She knew what she wanted to look at and had a persistent strong desire to complete the project in a thoughtful way

He had fine knowledge of his discipline.

[This student] brought some extraordinarily strong writing and organizing attributes with her. This made the project simple to advise.

This student was very well prepared in the substantive content area of her IS project ‐ the project clearly grew out of her coursework and knowledge of theories she could apply to the research question she identified in her study.

Ability to work on his own, very upbeat attitude, and an outstanding willingness to work hard.

Writing quality was exceptional ‐ little, if any editing required. Independent thinker with unique and creative approach.

Very creative and willing to try new ideas. Unafraid of being "wrong" and effective in troubleshooting.

Ability to work in the lab with a variety of techniques with little assistance/guidance from me. Ability to trouble‐shoot experimental difficulties.

Organization; originality; well‐planned methodology; familiar with relevant literature; had well‐developed plan for research; independent attitude and expectation for prolonged hard work.

She was exceptionally well prepared in terms of her ability to plan ahead and make realistic goals. She is extremely well organized and able to balance a lot of tasks at once.

Knowledge of the primary sources.

Exposure to different theories, and an understanding of how to do research.

He was exceptionally prepared in ALL areas ‐ quantitative skills, writing, research conceptualization and more.

The student was well grounded in the concepts of the discipline and how to do research.

She was enthusiastic about her subject.

He did a fine job articulating arguments.

She started well in advance, took on an ambitious project by carefully planning her time and available resources (even finished a little early). She was exceptionally well prepared for this experience in every way.

She was exactly on target throughout the process and was exceptional in her planning and implementation of the project, needing my guidance only occasionally.

Sample Mentor Comments on Deficient Preparation:

Major writing concerns; difficulty responding to feedback; major problems with research design knowledge

She was not able to effectively integrate sources into her writing.

[This student] could not read, evaluate, and summarize scholarly sources.

Part 6, Page: 15

She needed to have started her readings in the summer, as she was advised.

He should have been better prepared to work independently on a topic. His writing should be much better than it is. He actually appears to be frozen when asked to write something.

[This student] did a fine job researching her topic, and gathering data through interviews. However, her limited writing skills made it difficult for her to clearly and effectively express her thoughts and insights. This was especially true in drafts of her chapters, which were sometimes quite difficult to follow. She worked hard to polish her writing before submitting the thesis, and there was marked improvement in the final copy, but still the writing was rather wooden and plodding through much of the thesis.

Writing!

She had some difficulty finding sources for her literature review‐‐she could have been better prepared in this area.

Her quantitative training was lacking, but she showed great dedication in gaining the skills necessary to conduct her research.

time management; sense or responsibility; presenting and summarizing data in standard formats

[This student] did not have good time management skills, and I don't think she fully understood how long laboratory work takes to complete. She would give herself very short windows of time in which to complete experiments, and often she couldn't get them done, or would do them so quickly that they didn't include the proper experimental controls.

This student clearly did not learn time‐management and goal‐setting skills in previous projects/coursework. Perhaps this is partially due to the lack of a smaller project during the junior year.

The student was enthusiastic about the idea of the capstone project but not deeply invested in doing the work.

She had no quantitative training.

His understanding of how science works was lacking ‐ he came into his project with his mind made up, but I think learned of the complexity of natural systems and the range of problems one can and cannot solve.

This student struggled with writing, but never recognized it. I suggested the Writing Center many times, but she never went. She had unrealistic ideas about being a strong writer.

For this student, as with most pursuing a double major, this project is their first time thinking deeply about the connections between their fields of study. This is one of the challenges in interdisciplinary student research.

This student had very poor time‐management skills. He admitted early that he was a procrastinator and demonstrated that throughout the semester.

The student should have been better prepared to objectively and thoroughly represent the opposition to her position and confront that opposition in greater depth. She also struggled with sentence clarity at times.

He showed a fairly limited knowledge of the relevant literature.

Understanding of social theory. Thinking critically about the implications of her findings.

In developing research questions and knowing how to conduct research.

Organizational skills.

Working independently and on larger‐scale projects. This could hint at the general absence of term papers in our courses.

Part 6, Page: 16

Time management. Balance of personal and professional responsibilities. I feel some of this students' classes suffered because of an inability to balance his student leadership responsibilities and academic obligations.

Time management and organizational skills.

Question Q4: “Please share any other observations you have about this capstone you think may be of interest to the study”

Prior questions on this survey gathered detailed feedback on the student’s capstone while this final catchall question was intended to give the mentor an opportunity to provide additional observations. Most of the themes mentioned in the responses to this question also appeared in the responses to the specific open‐ended questions about student preparation, the mentor’s experience, and the benefits for the student.

Some faculty used the opportunity to make a general statement about capstones, while others provided additional information about the particular capstone they mentored. Table Mentor Q4‐1 in the appendices contains the listing of coding units constructed from an analysis of the responses, along with a two‐tiered hierarchical grouping of the units into topics. The table also indicates whether the comment is positive, negative, or simply observational relative to its view of the particular capstone or capstones in general, and indicates the count of occurrences of each coding unit.

There were 181 capstones for which the mentor made an additional observation, resulting in 327 coded units.

Summary of Comments

Overall sense. When simply given a chance to comment freely, most comments were positive: 207 positive to 104 negative. Many comments cited benefits for the student.

Double majors. There were 9 comments indicating that capstones that combine two majors are particularly difficult for students to perform successfully because integration of disciplines is difficult. Two other comments noted a double major capstone that was done successfully, but suggested this was exceptional. Comments suggested that a combined major capstone should be attempted only for gifted students or if the two majors are similar in their methodologies. The difficulty of co‐mentoring a combined capstone was also mentioned.

Grading/evaluation. A handful of comments related to the structure relative to grading or evaluation. Some endorsed flexibility in structure to deal with students’ particular difficulties with one form – the ability to do an oral exam in place of a written paper, or allowing the adviser to convert the structure to another form in midstream, such as going from a thesis to a comprehensive exam, if the original form flounders, or allowing the student to convert from a combined double major to a single major capstone.

Mentor benefits/disadvantages. 28 comments noted for emphasis that the experience was positive for the mentor.

Other most frequently noted positives:

• The student developed, in general (25) • The capstone outcome was good or excellent (25)

Part 6, Page: 17

• The student’s performance was good or exceptionally good (21) • The student’s effort was good or exceptionally good (10) • The student performed better than in a regular course (8) • The student gained self‐confidence (6) • The capstone is valuable for the student even if the product is not exceptional (5)

And negatives:

• The student’s effort was poor (10) • The capstone outcome was poor (9)

Table Mentor Q4‐1 also indicates a breakdown of the counts of the comments by school and, separately, the division of the capstone major.

Sample of mentor comments:

It was the reflective component of the project that offered my student the most learning. That is, she has identified how she wants to move forward as an artist.

I never would have seen what this student could accomplish if not for this intensive experience. As a result of her accomplishments, I could advise her more effectively, champion for her more strongly, and help her realize her potential.

The number of students I started out with (5) was too many, especially as all of my time in supervising these projects was outside of load.

[This student] embodies the best of IS in that he was a student who started out as an average student, but who excelled in the IS process because of his own work ethic, his creativity/intellectual engagement, and his emotionally acquiring ownership of the project (which helped keep him motivated even when times got tough).

We really got to prepare our students for this process as early as possible.

[This student] had about the worst IS experience you can have, passed from three advisers and then having her test animals die (possibly due to a miscommunication between herself and her previous adviser).

The opportunity to do such an I.S., the composition of a collection of poems or stories, is very important for students like this one who plan to go onto graduate writing programs, to which admission is very competitive and depends upon an impressive writing portfolio. They are also important to students whose engagement to literature is best expressed through the writing and revision of their own work, but who might not be currently planning to go onto a writing program in the near future.

This was a project in which the student saw an application of mathematics that they wanted to pursue. However, the depth of mathematics needed to pursue the topic was beyond the ability of the student. Not all students will recognize how difficult the mathematics can be to do some relatively easy to explain ideas.

The key to this student's success was in determining an accessible topic of great interest to the student (in this case, related to the student's intercollegiate sport). This led to the student's desire to work hard (and to learn new content) in pursuing the project. I believe that the topic choice is particularly key for weaker students, who are more subject to early discouragement.

This is a student for whom academic progress is probably not central. I think he benefitted from, and enjoyed, the IS project because it increased his sense of what it takes to move from idea to finished product. Thus I think it was a very valuable part of his education.

Part 6, Page: 18

The subject areas of the student's research related mathematics to issues of social justice (health care access, Third World poverty versus western wealth, etc.) The resulting interplay between the student's worldview (and religious beliefs) and her scientific research was motivating, and gave her a strong sense of the value of this work. When possible, choosing topics in a way that can acknowledges a student’s deeply‐held convictions can lead to a powerful connection between academia and the broader world.

Occasionally we have students who have exceptional technical abilities but lack some of the more creative abilities that are vital for a highly successful IS. It is amazing how well they do in our classes but do have more difficulty in the IS project.

This was a double major and so I had to work with a professor from another department. It worked well because the other professor and I had good chemistry. But, in general, I would discourage students from double majoring if their IS topic does not lend itself EASILY to the epistemological and methodological requirements of BOTH the disciplines.

This student was amazing. I had a hard time keeping up ‐he gave me about 15 pages of reading to edit and comment on nearly every single week. He 'created new knowledge'. This is the most successful IS experience I believe I will ever have.

Even when both research advisors are united behind the student and his/her work (as was the case here), there is something more difficult about co‐mentored, interdisciplinary research, as compared to single‐field, single‐mentor work.

We have to have our students prepared for the process systematically.

I am working closely with the student to try to get her thesis published. This is an excellent opportunity for both of us, as I may not have done research in this specific area without exposure to her project and she would not have had a cheerleader who is helping her to reframe the paper into a peer‐reviewable manuscript

This capstone was not just an academic exercise, it created a business that could be here for years to come.

As an art student, studio space to work is imperative. This student acquired space in order to facilitate his creative process. Students who have not acquired space are more likely to not achieve their goals. For studio art students completing their SCEs, this issue needs to be addressed at Washington College.

This student was a unique example of a double major completing two SCE's and she demonstrated competency completing them both ‐ no small achievement!

Fabulous project ‐ comprehensive, technical, creative, etc. involving huge investments of the student's time (~20h/week) and substantial investments of my own time during the training and trouble‐shooting phases (~5‐10h/week during these times).

This is an example of the value of a Capstone Project experience. Without it, the student had islands of knowledge and little personal development to link them. Afterwards, the student was a new person intellectually.

If I had had the option to stop the thesis and divert this student to comprehensive exams I would have. I am hopeful that our department will revisit this as an option rather than force students who are clearly not motivated (or in some cases able) to write a thesis to slog through and do so. We do offer alternatives to a traditional thesis, but no students choose to take this route for some reason.

This was my third double major CSE. I've been disappointed in all three. Students seem to conceive it as a divide and conquer rather than an integration of two disciplines. I have come away with the view that only very strong students should undertake a joint CSE and there needs to be some way to develop them

Part 6, Page: 19

so that they can/need to switch to a single CSE without losing too much ground if it becomes clear that they are not capable of producing a quality double CSE.

Perhaps only gifted students should do integrated (double‐major) capstones.

There should be a studio art course to prepare students for the visual art SCE ‐ more than a Seminar course, it could be a studio course about the independent development of a cohesive set of ideas, images (paintings, drawings, digital/photo/print media) or objects (sculpture, ceramics, etc.)

The comprehensive exam should be a point where students can assemble a variety of topics in a cohesive manner and see relationships between courses.

I suspect this student would have benefited more from a well organized course on research methods.

This was a double‐major and it again illustrated some of the difficulties in getting students to handle the responsibilities and expectations that come with such a project.

The capstone gives students with less than impressive academic records an opportunity to really show what they're capable of doing, as in the case of this student. This was probably the best work she's done during her college years, and she did it almost

Students who are not academically motivated should not be compelled to do an independent research project as their capstone.

This project involved the community and real‐world problems in a way that few of our students accomplish. It was an enlightening and well‐executed project that has the potential to have a positive impact on the LIHEAP program she studied.

The student greatly improved with official deadline and schedules

When you have a student who enjoys doing independent research and has strong communication skills, the capstone become their own and the advisor has very little hand holding to do. What a joy!

I think such a capstone is wonderful. I continue to hope (and wonder how) that perhaps our college curriculum can encompass this idea right from the start, at the freshmen level, with even more provision ‐ for skills in articulation, writing Post conference addendum ‐ Summary of implications for our research questions


As with student comments on their sense of benefits, mentors most frequently noted developmental benefits that are precursors to life‐long learning: managing a large project, working independently, doing original research, taking ownership of a project, and the experience of presenting project results through a major paper and/or oral presentations.


The most often cited benefits mentors saw for themselves included enjoyment of working 1:1 with students, learning about the topic of the student’s project, improvement of their teaching, mentoring or advising skills, making new professional contacts, or the satisfaction of working on a project with a successful outcome.

On the other hand, mentors cited frustrations from mentoring students who didn’t perform well, were unmotivated, had weak skills in writing, critical thinking, or project management, or who missed meetings or didn’t respond well to feedback.

Part 6, Page: 20

Some mentors viewed it as a benefit that they were exposed to an area outside their expertise, but this was balanced by others who felt that this was an unreasonable burden.

Mentoring capstones involves considerable personal investment in the student:faculty relationship and the outcomes of individual student’s projects. Correspondingly, the main benefit for mentors appears to be the sense of satisfaction that comes when this relationship is productive.


This is covered in other project documents.


While some comments noted the workload as a counterbalancing cost, these types of comments were surprisingly few in number.


We have noted that the mentors’ perception of the capstone seems to be highly dependent on how well they believe the student performed relative to their expectations. Fortunately, in most cases, students perform well.


This is covered in other project documents.


As noted above, some mentors enjoy supervising capstones outside their area of expertise, others do not wish to. In the assignment of mentors to student projects, best practices might allow faculty of both sentiments to have options.

Mentors report frustration dealing with a significant minority of students who are not fully prepared for the capstone, notably who do not have sufficient writing or project management skills. Support services specifically targeted for seniors and capstone projects, possibly through reading/writing centers, might be helpful in dealing with those students, while reserving mentor time for other matters. “Reverse engineering” departmental curricula and the general curriculum to prepare students for the capstone experience would seem to be a necessity. In addition to writing and presenting, precursor experiences embedded in general education or departmental courses might include elements of research and project management.

Because co‐advising, for example for double majors, came up several times as a source of problems, policies on responsibilities in cases of co‐advising should be explicit and clear.

Associated with this were comments that questioned the ability of students, particularly weaker students, to do integrated multiple‐major capstones, and most specifically if they

Part 6, Page: 21

required a theoretical understanding in more than one discipline. Since other comments praised capstones that were successful in integrating majors, it seems that institutions should not actively discourage them, but should consider implementing special approval procedures and guidelines that would ensure the student is capable of the challenge and advisers in both disciplines are supporting the project.


To be determined!

Part 6, Page: 22

PART 6 TABLES: MENTOR COMMENT TABLES

Part 6, Page: 23

blank page

Part 6, Page: 24

Table Mentor Q1 - 1: Detailed Tally by Topic

Please describe any notable positive or negative aspects of this capstone experience for you as the mentor.

line Focus Sub-Focus Group 1 Group 2 Group 3Group2 Ment Pos Ment Neg Total

1 1 mentor cap structure cap structure cap admin advising mentor's advising of student should have been better 0 7 72 1 mentor cap structure cap structure cap admin co‐advising co‐advising ‐ was mixed, some pros some cons 1 2 33 1 mentor cap structure cap structure cap admin co‐advising co-advising - other mentor left 0 1 14 1 mentor cap structure cap structure cap admin co‐advising co-advising - other mentor unprofessional 0 1 15 1 mentor cap structure cap structure cap admin co‐advising co-advising - other department discouraged inter-disciplinary work 0 1 16 1 mentor cap structure cap structure cap admin co‐advising co-advising - student worked with other mentor off campus 1 7 87 1 mentor cap structure cap structure cap admin co‐advising co-advising - disagreed with other mentor's assessment 0 2 28 1 mentor cap structure cap structure cap admin co‐advising co-advising - both disciplines watered down writing 0 1 19 1 mentor cap structure cap structure cap admin co‐advising co-advising - general problem co-advising for two major capstone 0 9 910 1 mentor cap structure cap structure cap admin co‐advising general - mediocre students shouldn't do double-major capstones 0 1 111 1 mentor cap structure cap structure cap admin organiz admin - working with college administrators 0 1 112 1 mentor cap structure cap structure cap admin organiz admin - organization of department comps/reading 0 2 213 1 mentor cap structure cap structure cap admin organiz admin - IRIS constraints 0 2 214 1 mentor cap structure cap structure cap admin organiz obstacle - confidential nature of topic 0 1 1

15 1 mentor cap structure cap structure cap admin organiz project management - keeping correct/workable focus/scope for project 4 6 1016 1 mentor cap structure cap structure cap admin student student health or personal problems negatively impacted project 0 11 1117 1 mentor cap structure cap structure cap admin student co-advising - mentor had little say in student's work 0 1 118 1 mentor cap structure cap structure cap admin student collab - could not meet because student abroad 0 6 619 1 mentor cap structure cap structure cap admin student collab - mentor needed to micromanage 0 16 1620 1 mentor cap structure cap structure cap admin student collab - student helped by second advisor 1 0 121 1 mentor cap structure cap structure cap admin student collab - enjoyed working with student 1 on 1 22 0 2222 1 mentor cap structure cap structure cap admin support admin - equipment/facilties/software issues 0 8 823 1 mentor cap structure cap structure cap admin support admin - IT support 0 1 124 1 mentor cap structure cap structure cap admin support admin - field support 0 2 225 1 mentor cap structure cap structure cap admin time time period too short for project 0 18 1826 1 mentor cap structure cap structure cap admin Total 29 107 13627 1 mentor cap structure cap structure workload other courses other courses took away from mentoring time 0 3 327 1 mentor cap structure cap structure workload general burdensome or undercredited addition to workload 0 8 828 1 mentor cap structure cap structure workload other projects too many independent projects to mentor 0 1 129 1 mentor cap structure cap structure workload outside area project outside mentor's area of expertise 0 22 2230 1 mentor cap structure cap structure workload size project individual capstone as much work as teaching a single class 0 2 231 1 mentor cap structure cap structure workload size project more work than final product worth 0 3 332 1 mentor cap structure cap structure workload Total 0 39 3933 1 mentor development development knowledge contribute contributed to mentor's own research 15 0 1534 1 mentor development development knowledge contribute results will inform mentor's future work/courses 9 0 935 1 mentor development development knowledge interest topic also of interest to mentor 40 0 4036 1 mentor development development knowledge outside area learned about things outside specialty 20 0 2037 1 mentor development development knowledge outside area learned about student's topic 53 0 5338 1 mentor development development knowledge outside area read new novels 2 0 239 1 mentor development development knowledge outside area student made mentor interested in topic 9 0 940 1 mentor development development knowledge outside area opportunity to mentor double-major thesis 8 0 841 1 mentor development development knowledge tech learned sophisticated statistical procedures 1 0 142 1 mentor development development knowledge topic intellectually stimulating 6 0 643 1 mentor development development knowledge topic gained new understanding of topic 7 0 744 1 mentor development development knowledge topic mentor learned about student's host community through fieldwork 2 0 2

45 1 mentor development development knowledge topic mutual learning 27 0 27

46 1 mentor development development knowledge Total 199 0 19947 1 mentor development development mentoring skills criticism mentor - skills - constructive criticism (learned how to give) 3 0 3

481 mentor development development mentoring skills diverse mentor - skills - learned to work with students with learning differences 3 0 3

49 1 mentor development development mentoring skills guide mentor - skills - guide student to appropriate grad schools 1 0 150 1 mentor development development mentoring skills guide mentor - skills - helped student find more modest project 1 1 251 1 mentor development development mentoring skills guide mentor - skills - linking student's interests across disciplines 1 0 152 1 mentor development development mentoring skills guide mentor - skills - guide original piece of work to completion 5 0 553 1 mentor development development mentoring skills monitor able to track student's growth 8 0 854 1 mentor development development mentoring skills monitor learned to monitor students more closely 1 0 155 1 mentor development development mentoring skills new mentoring skills - learned to do something differently 8 1 956 1 mentor development development mentoring skills support mentor - skills - helped student work through academic insecurity 1 0 157 1 mentor development development mentoring skills teach mentor - skills - teach writing 2 0 258 1 mentor development development mentoring skills teach mentor - skills - teach how to refine work 3 1 459 1 mentor development development mentoring skills teach mentor - skills - teach theory 1 2 360 1 mentor development development mentoring skills timeman mentor - time management problem 0 5 561 1 mentor development development mentoring skills Total 38 10 4862 1 mentor development development prof dev outside mentor - making scholarly contacts 3 0 3

63 1 mentor development development prof dev outside mentor - making scholarly contacts - different department/discipline 3 0 3

64 1 mentor development development prof dev Total 6 0 665 1 mentor neg experience neg experience general exp negative general - frustrating for mentor 1 28 2966 1 mentor neg experience neg experience general exp outside frustrated by lack of cooperation from other colleges in responding 0 1 167 1 mentor neg experience neg experience general exp student collab - student not easy to work with 0 9 9

2/22/2012

Part 6, Page: 25


68 1 mentor neg experience neg experience general exp student student tried to "game" system 0 2 269 1 mentor neg experience neg experience general exp student disappointed with student's progress 1 5 670 1 mentor pos experience pos experience general exp fun fun - unusual capstone 1 0 171 1 mentor pos experience pos experience general exp fun fun - to be a part of 4 0 472 1 mentor pos experience pos experience general exp overall general ‐ good experience overall 5 0 573 1 mentor pos experience pos experience general exp overall general ‐ excellent experience for both 2 0 274 1 mentor pos experience pos experience general exp overall general - positive despite challenges 3 0 375 1 mentor pos experience pos experience general exp overall extra attention from mentor fruitful 2 0 276 1 mentor pos experience pos experience general exp overall enjoyed seeing project develop 10 0 1077 1 mentor pos experience pos experience general exp student enjoyed profitable conversations / exchange of ideas with student 13 0 1378 1 mentor pos experience pos experience general exp student collab - great student to work with 30 0 3079 1 mentor pos experience pos experience general exp student collab - pleasure to mentor student 18 0 1880 1 mentor pos experience pos experience general exp student collab - liked working with colleague 5 0 581 1 mentor pos experience pos experience general exp student collab - became closer to student 12 0 1282 1 mentor pos experience pos experience general exp student collab - student easy to work with 12 0 1283 1 mentor pos experience pos experience general exp student collab - student comfortable working with mentor 1 0 184 1 mentor pos experience pos experience general exp student collab - mentor had previously been student's advisor 3 0 3

851 mentor pos experience pos experience general exp student collab - mentor has more respect for student after working together 3 0 3

86 1 mentor pos experience pos experience general exp student enjoyed seeing student develop 42 0 4287 1 mentor pos experience pos experience general exp Total 168 45 21388 2 student attribute ability ability general student quality - general 1 0 189 2 student attribute ability ability general best student worked with 6 0 690 2 student attribute ability ability general exceptional student 15 0 1591 2 student attribute ability ability general intelligent student 11 0 1192 2 student attribute ability ability general ideal student 2 0 293 2 student attribute ability ability poor could not perform at level necessary 0 16 1694 2 student attribute ability ability research research skills - good 1 0 195 2 student attribute ability ability writing stong writing skills; neg - weak writing skills 10 22 3296 2 student attribute ability ability Total 46 38 8497 2 student attribute disposition confidence general self-confidence - general 15 4 1998 2 student attribute disposition confidence abilities over estimated own abilities 0 4 499 2 student attribute disposition confidence academic self-confidence lacking- academic - writing 0 1 1100 2 student attribute disposition confidence personal self-confidence - lack conf to complete long-term project 0 1 1101 2 student attribute disposition confidence personal lacked of self-confidence hampered project 0 6 6102 2 student attribute disposition confidence Total 15 16 31103 2 student attribute disposition motivation general motivation - general 41 13 54104 2 student attribute disposition motivation curiosity had (didn't have) intellectual curiosity 6 2 8105 2 student attribute disposition motivation fieldwork work ethic - dedication in field 14 2 16106 2 student attribute disposition motivation motivation intellectual motivation, generally 13 2 15107 2 student attribute disposition motivation motivation intellectual motivation, toward project 50 20 70108 2 student attribute disposition motivation work ethic self-discipline / work ethic 50 20 70109 2 student attribute disposition motivation Total 174 59 233110 2 student attribute disposition personal reflect excelled at self reflection 1 0 1111 2 student attribute knowledge personal limitations self-understanding - unable to see own weaknesses 0 1 1112 2 student attribute knowledge personal Total 1 1 2113 2 student development disposition confidence general self-confidence - general 2 0 2114 2 student development disposition confidence academic self-confidence - academic - ability to do independent research 3 0 3115 2 student development disposition confidence Total 5 0 5116 2 student development disposition motivations project development - participation increased 1 0 1117 2 student development disposition motivations project development - interest grew 4 0 4118 2 student development disposition motivations responsible learned how to be responsible / accountable 2 0 2119 2 student development disposition motivations Total 7 0 7120 2 student development general overall overall development - more than any other student 1 0 1121 2 student development general overall Total 1 0 1

1222 student development knowledge disciplinary general disciplinary knowledge - learned a lot; neg-had difficulties mastering 4 2 6

123 2 student development knowledge disciplinary ethics gained disciplinary knowledge, ethics 2 0 2124 2 student development knowledge disciplinary literature gained disciplinary knowledge - literature 4 0 4125 2 student development knowledge disciplinary theory gained disciplinary knowledge - theoretical foundation 1 0 1126 2 student development knowledge disciplinary Total 11 2 13127 2 student development knowledge personal accomplish developed sense of accomplishment 1 0 1128 2 student development knowledge personal interests self-understanding - of interests (career clarification) 6 0 6129 2 student development knowledge personal style self-understanding - of learning style 1 0 1130 2 student development knowledge personal Total 8 0 8131 2 student development prof devel profdevel improve development - intellectual growth 19 0 19132 2 student development prof devel profdevel schoolprep preparation for grad school/professional school 6 0 6133 2 student development prof devel profdevel Total 25 0 25134 2 student development skills communication writing writing - generally developed 15 0 15135 2 student development skills communication Total 15 0 15136 2 student development skills critical thinking analysis development - analytical skills 1 0 1137 2 student development skills critical thinking analysis CT - learned to refine / develop /clarify ideas 3 3 6138 2 student development skills critical thinking argument CT - developed an original argument / project 4 0 4

2/22/2012

Part 6, Page: 26


139 2 student development skills critical thinking general development - CT skills 3 0 3140 2 student development skills critical thinking Total 11 3 14141 2 student development skills research methods development - understanding of methods 3 0 3142 2 student development skills research Total 3 0 3143 2 student development skills skills prep development - student with weak background 2 5 7144 2 student development skills skills projmgt development - improved after slow start 3 0 3145 2 student development skills skills projmgt development - improved after being pushed 1 0 1

146 2 student development skills skills projmgt development - improved time management - meeting deadlines 1 0 1

147 2 student development skills skills Total 7 5 12

148 2 student development skills technical clinical development - clinical skills 3 0 3149 2 student development skills technical Total 3 0 3150 2 student performance disposition motivations project motivation - toward multifaceted work 1 0 1151 2 student performance disposition motivations project did well on ambitious project; neg - project too ambitious 2 5 7

1522 student performance disposition motivations research motivation - toward research 7 3 10

1532 student performance disposition motivations Total 10 8 18

154 2 student performance disposition personal maturity showed maturity 7 0 7155 2 student performance disposition personal perseverance perseverance 5 0 5156 2 student performance disposition personal tolerance tolerance of obstacles, risk, failure, ambiguity 2 2 4157 2 student performance disposition personal Total 14 2 16158 2 student performance disposition work ethic research work ethic - worked hard on research 9 0 9159 2 student performance disposition work ethic results work ethic - led to success 1 0 1160 2 student performance disposition work ethic technique work ethic - dedication to learning technique 0 0 0161 2 student performance disposition work ethic writing work ethic - worked hard on writing 3 0 3162 2 student performance disposition work ethic Total 13 0 13163 2 student performance knowledge underst general understanding - larger context - general 3 4 7164 2 student performance knowledge underst cultural understanding - of others or other cultures 0 1 1

1652 student performance knowledge underst expectations realized or surpassed expectations - understanding study implications 4 0 4

166 2 student performance knowledge underst Total 7 5 12167 2 student performance skills collaboration general collaboration skills - general failure to work with mentor 0 21 21168 2 student performance skills collaboration advisor collaboration skills - missed meetings with mentor 0 23 23169 2 student performance skills collaboration advisor collaboration - met with mentor only toward end of capstone 0 4 4170 2 student performance skills collaboration advisor collaboration skills - attending class 0 3 3171 2 student performance skills collaboration advisor collaboration skills - responding to feedback 25 35 60172 2 student performance skills collaboration prep collaboration skills - prepared for meetings 5 0 5173 2 student performance skills collaboration teamwork collaboration skills - teamwork 2 4 6174 2 student performance skills collaboration Total 32 90 122175 2 student performance skills communication oral oral communication - presentation skills 4 2 6176 2 student performance skills communication writing writing - thematic development 0 1 1177 2 student performance skills communication writing writing - mechanics 2 7 9178 2 student performance skills communication writing writing - grad-student level 1 0 1179 2 student performance skills communication writing writing - cohesiveness 0 8 8

1802 student performance skills communication writing writing - multiple drafts; pos-drafts improved; neg - failed to submit drafts 6 14 20

181 2 student performance skills communication Total 13 32 45182 2 student performance skills critical thinking general CT - general 3 5 8183 2 student performance skills critical thinking analysis CT - analysis skills 5 4 9184 2 student performance skills critical thinking apply CT - applying principles / theory 5 0 5185 2 student performance skills critical thinking argument CT - argumentation 1 1 2186 2 student performance skills critical thinking integrate CT - integrating knowledge from other disciplines; neg - unable to 13 1 14187 2 student performance skills critical thinking integrate CT - integrate theory and practice 0 1 1188 2 student performance skills critical thinking integrate CT - synthesis 3 0 3189 2 student performance skills critical thinking manner intellectual independence 1 9 10190 2 student performance skills critical thinking manner CT - creative thinking 5 1 6191 2 student performance skills critical thinking manner CT - complexity of thinking 3 0 3192 2 student performance skills critical thinking manner CT - thinking at grad-student level 3 0 3193 2 student performance skills critical thinking manner CT - comprehensive (scope) 0 1 1194 2 student performance skills critical thinking Total 42 23 65195 2 student performance skills project mgt. general project management - general 0 2 2196 2 student performance skills project mgt. expectations realized or surpassed expectations 3 0 3197 2 student performance skills project mgt. organiz project management - goal setting 3 0 3198 2 student performance skills project mgt. organiz project management - pre project planning 0 3 3199 2 student performance skills project mgt. organiz project management - planning skills 1 1 2200 2 student performance skills project mgt. organiz project management - organization 7 2 9201 2 student performance skills project mgt. organiz reached project goals 6 0 6202 2 student performance skills project mgt. organiz project management - always made progress toward end goal 1 0 1203 2 student performance skills project mgt. organiz project management - competing commitments 0 3 3204 2 student performance skills project mgt. own project management - working independently 42 13 55205 2 student performance skills project mgt. own project management - used own data 1 0 1206 2 student performance skills project mgt. own project management - taking responsibility 17 3 20

2/22/2012

Part 6, Page: 27


2072 student performance skills project mgt. own project management - see major project through from beginning to end 1 2 3

208 2 student performance skills project mgt. own project management - taking initiative 4 2 6209 2 student performance skills project mgt. timemgt time management - general 12 43 55210 2 student performance skills project mgt. timemgt time management - meeting deadlines 11 15 26211 2 student performance skills project mgt. timemgt time management - started process late/ fell behind 0 18 18212 2 student performance skills project mgt. timemgt time management - project not finished 0 2 2213 2 student performance skills project mgt. timemgt time management - drafts 0 4 4

2142 student performance skills project mgt. troublsh

project management - troubleshooting - repeat experiments when necessary 1 0 1

215 2 student performance skills project mgt. troublsh project management - troubleshoot equipment difficulties 3 0 3216 2 student performance skills project mgt. troublsh project management - troubleshoot experiment difficulties 0 1 1217 2 student performance skills project mgt. troublsh project management - troubleshooting - overcame adversity 4 0 4


project management - troubleshooting - overcame adversity - changed topics 2 1 3


project management ‐ troubleshooting ‐ overcame adversity ‐ worked good‐naturedly

3 0 3

220 2 student performance skills project mgt. Total 122 115 237221 2 student performance skills research analysis research - interpreting findings 0 3 3222 2 student performance skills research cond research - conducting 5 2 7223 2 student performance skills research cond research - conducting - data gathering 4 4 8224 2 student performance skills research cond research methods - general 2 0 2225 2 student performance skills research cond research - field work specific to discipline 2 0 2226 2 student performance skills research cond research design - general 0 2 2227 2 student performance skills research lit review literature review - analysis 3 0 3228 2 student performance skills research lit review literature review - locating sources 3 3 6229 2 student performance skills research lit review literature review - evaluating materials 1 1 2230 2 student performance skills research quant quantitative skills - statistics 0 1 1231 2 student performance skills research research understanding - research process; not understanding 1 1 2232 2 student performance skills research Total 21 17 38233 2 student performance skills technical general technical skills - general 3 1 4234 2 student performance skills technical disc technical skills - specific to discipline 0 1 1235 2 student performance skills technical Total 3 2 5236 2 student preparation other prep communication pre-project - communication skills 1 0 1237 2 student preparation other prep CT pre-project - CT skills 1 0 1238 2 student preparation other prep research pre-project - research design skills 0 3 3239 2 student preparation other prep wellprep pre-project - well prepared in general 3 4 7240 2 student preparation other prep wellprep pre-project - well prepared - mentor able to teach at grad level 1 0 1241 2 student preparation other prep writing pre-project - writing skills 1 2 3242 2 student preparation other prep Total 7 9 16243 3 project product prof devel prof devel contacts collaboration skills - made scholarly contacts 2 0 2244 3 project product prof devel prof devel conference gave conference presentation 5 0 5

2453 project product prof devel prof devel paper

professional development - produced work that was or will be published (or is publishable) 3 0 3

2463 project product prof devel prof devel schoolprep

professional development - helped prepare for / led directly to graduate level position 1 0 1

247 3 project product prof devel prof devel Total 11 0 11248 3 project product research results knowledge research - resulted in successful findings 1 0 1249 3 project product research results thesis writing - long work/research work, comprehensive thesis 1 0 1250 3 project product research results tool technical skills - created assessment tool 1 0 1251 3 project product research results Total 3 0 3252 3 project quality quality quality general project - good quality (or not) 23 13 36253 3 project quality quality quality community academics and community balanced in project 1 0 1254 3 project quality quality quality community project benefits local community 2 0 2255 3 project quality quality quality expectations surpassed mentor's expectations ‐ interest 5 1 6256 3 project quality quality quality expectations surpassed mentor's expectations (or underachieved) 8 7 15257 3 project quality quality quality research research - good quality 3 0 3258 3 project quality quality quality research research - original 3 0 3259 3 project quality quality quality research interesting data /content 3 0 3260 3 project quality quality quality research research - good topic 13 0 13261 3 project quality quality quality research research - well-defined topic 1 0 1262 3 project quality quality quality research research - good ideas 3 0 3263 3 project quality quality quality research research - unique topic / took on project that had little prior research 3 0 3264 3 project quality quality quality research research - project successful 3 0 3265 3 project quality quality quality research research - well-conceived design 1 0 1266 3 project quality quality quality research research - topic not unique 0 3 3267 3 project quality quality quality scope project not ambitious enough 0 4 4268 3 project quality quality quality Total 72 28 100269 4 None No aspects other none no aspects none 23 102 125270 4 None No aspects other none Total 23 102 125

Grand Total 1165 758 1923

2/22/2012

Part 6, Page: 28

Table Mentor Q1 ‐ 2: Summary Tally of Mentor Comments by Topic Groups

Please describe any notable positive or negative aspects of this capstone experience for you as the mentor.

line Focus Sub-Focus Group 1 Group 2 Description Positive Negative Total % of Pos % of Neg

11 mentor cap structure cap structure cap admin Total

Capstone administration aspects: co-advising, support problems, needing to micromanage, not enough time to complete project, enjoyed working 1:1 with student

29 107 136

21 mentor cap structure cap structure workload Total

Workload issues: due to project outside area of expertise, other duties, number of projects mentoring; time required 0 39 39

3 subtotal: 29 146 175 2.5% 19.3%

4

1 mentor development development knowledge TotalMentor gained knowledge: learned about area outside of specialty, learned about project area, learned things that will help with own research or future courses

199 0 199

5 1 mentor development development mentoring skills Total Mentor gained advising skills 38 10 486 1 mentor development development prof dev Total Mentor gained professionally: made scholarly contacts 6 0 6

7 subtotal: 243 10 253 20.9% 1.3%

81 mentor

pos/neg experience

pos/neg experience

general exp TotalMentors personal experience: enjoyed working with the student and project (or not) 168 45 213

9 subtotal: 168 45 213 14.4% 5.9%

10 Mentor Focus Subtotal: 440 201 641 37.8% 26.5%

112 student attribute ability ability Total

Student abilities: had general level of abilities needed for capstone; neg - lack of writing ability 46 38 84

12 2 student attribute disposition confidence Total Student level of self-confidence helped or hindered project 15 16 3113 2 student attribute disposition motivation Total Student motivation and/or work ethic helped or hindered project 174 59 23314 2 student attribute knowledge personal Total Students ability to see own weaknesses helped or hindered project 1 1 215 subtotal: 236 114 350 20.3% 15.0%

16 2 student development disposition confidence Total Student developed self-confidence during capstone 5 0 517 2 student development disposition motivations Total Student motivation for research/project increased during capstone 7 0 718 2 student development general overall Total Student developed greatly during capstone 1 0 119 2 student development knowledge disciplinary Total Student gained disciplinary knowledge/understanding 11 2 13

202 student development knowledge personal Total

Student developed sense of accomplishment or understanding of own interests or abilities 8 0 8

21 2 student development prof devel profdevel Total Student developed academically, better prepared for grad school 25 0 2522 2 student development skills communication Total Writing skills improved 15 0 1523 2 student development skills critical thinking Total Critical think skills developed - analysis, originality, clarity of ideas 11 3 1424 2 student development skills research Total Better understands research methods 3 0 3

25 2 student development skills skills Total Gained in conducting project 7 5 12

26 2 student development skills technical Total Developed clinical/technical skills 3 0 327 subtotal: 96 10 106 8.2% 1.3%

28 2 student performance disposition motivations Total Demonstrated motivation toward research 10 8 18

29 2 student performance disposition personal Total Demonstrated perseverance, maturity 14 2 1630 2 student performance disposition work ethic Total Worked hard 13 0 1331 2 student performance knowledge underst Total Saw larger context to project work (or not) 7 5 12

322 student performance skills collaboration Total Worked well with mentor (or not): , using feedback, attending meetings 32 90 122

2/22/2012Part 6, Page: 29

33 2 student performance skills communication Total Demonstrated good writing, oral communication skills 13 32 4534 2 student performance skills critical thinking Total Demonstrated good critical thinking skills 42 23 65

352 student performance skills project mgt. Total

Demonstrated good project management skills: keeping pace, meeting deadlines, taking responsibility, overcoming difficulties

122 115 237

36 2 student performance skills research Total Demonstrated good research skills 21 17 3837 2 student performance skills technical Total Demonstrated technical skills needed 3 2 538 subtotal: 277 294 571 23.8% 38.8%

39 2 student preparation other prep Total Preparation was good for the capstone 7 9 1640 subtotal: 7 9 16 0.6% 1.2%

41 Student Focus Subtotal: 616 427 1043 52.9% 56.3%

423 project product prof devel prof devel Total Capstone produced a product useful for professional advancement 11 0 11

43 3 project product research results Total Capstone produced a product that was noted 3 0 3

443 project quality quality quality Total

Project was praiseworthy (or not): good quality, surpassed expectations, had good ideas, was original or unique 72 28 100

45 Project Focus Subtotal: 86 28 114 7.4% 3.7%

46 4 None No aspects other none Total none - no aspects 23 102 12547

48 GRAND TOTAL 1165 758 1923 100.0% 100.0%

2/22/2012Part 6, Page: 30

Table Mentor Q2 ‐ 1: Detailed Tally of Counts of Mentor's Comments by Topic H=>3.50"Please note any particularly significant benefits you think the student gained from this capstone." M= 3.00 to 3.49

L=<3.00All BY MAJOR DIVISION BY SCHOOL BY GPA GROUP BY GENDER

Line Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 ID Description count % NS SS Hum Prof Self Red Tan Wht Yellow H M L M F1 1 skills collaboration general 99 collaboration skills - general 1 0.1% 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 12 1 skills collaboration advisor 102 collaboration skills - following directions 3 0.2% 2 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 2 2 13 1 skills collaboration advisor 101 collaboration skills - responding to feedback 11 0.9% 2 6 1 0 2 4 1 2 4 1 5 5 4 74 1 skills collaboration outside 104 collaboration skills - getting help from others 2 0.2% 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 25 1 skills collaboration teamwork 100 collaboration skills - teamwork 8 0.6% 3 3 2 0 0 3 3 1 1 2 2 4 4 4

6 collaboration Total Working with the mentor and others: teamwork, following directions, responding to feedback, getting help 25 2.0% 8 9 6 0 2 11 6 3 5 4 10 11 10 15

7 1 skills communication general 29 communication skills - general 7 0.6% 3 2 2 0 0 3 1 0 3 2 3 2 4 38 1 skills communicationoral 51 oral communication - presentation skills 11 0.9% 7 3 1 0 0 5 3 0 3 3 3 5 2 99 1 skills communicationoral 53 oral communication - present to diverse audiences 2 0.2% 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 210 1 skills communicationoral 50 oral communication - general 7 0.6% 2 3 2 0 0 3 3 0 1 3 4 0 3 411 1 skills communicationoral 52 oral communication - present difficult concepts 2 0.2% 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 212 1 skills communicationwriting 30 writing - general 63 5.0% 14 22 24 2 1 37 5 11 10 24 22 17 24 3913 1 skills communicationwriting 34 writing - multiple drafts 10 0.8% 1 7 1 0 1 1 0 6 3 1 7 2 4 614 1 skills communicationwriting 36 writing - long work/research work 9 0.7% 2 3 3 0 1 2 1 2 4 0 5 4 3 615 1 skills communicationwriting 31 writing - clarity 5 0.4% 3 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 2 3 1 416 1 skills communicationwriting 37 writing - foreign language skills 3 0.2% 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 317 1 skills communicationwriting 32 writing - new approaches 3 0.2% 0 1 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 118 1 skills communicationwriting 35 writing - present arguments 2 0.2% 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 219 1 skills communicationwriting 49 writing - style 6 0.5% 1 0 5 0 0 3 2 0 1 1 3 2 3 320 1 skills communicationwriting 40 writing - being concise 2 0.2% 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 121 1 skills communicationwriting 39 writing - developed own voice 5 0.4% 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 0 2 0 3 2 2 322 1 skills communicationwriting 38 writing - organization 1 0.1% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 123 communication Total Written and oral communication skills 138 10.9% 37 43 50 2 6 68 15 23 32 37 58 43 49 8924 1 skills critical thniking general 75 CT - general 22 1.7% 3 15 4 0 0 13 1 3 5 2 11 9 7 1525 1 skills critical thniking analysis 76 CT - analysis skills 15 1.2% 0 9 5 0 1 8 1 3 3 3 6 6 3 1226 1 skills critical thniking analysis 92 CT - learned to refine / develop /clarify ideas 11 0.9% 3 4 3 0 0 4 0 3 3 4 5 1 5 527 1 skills critical thniking analysis 85 CT - organize ideas 11 0.9% 0 2 9 0 0 7 0 3 1 2 6 3 2 928 1 skills critical thniking analysis 91 CT - learned how to grapple with difficult ideas 3 0.2% 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 2 1 1 229 1 skills critical thniking analysis 78 CT - problem solving 2 0.2% 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 030 1 skills critical thniking argument 90 CT - developed an original argument / project 16 1.3% 1 6 7 1 1 4 4 3 5 2 5 9 5 1131 1 skills critical thniking argument 96 CT - addressing opposing views/information 4 0.3% 0 1 3 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 3 2 232 1 skills critical thniking argument 97 CT - argumentation 4 0.3% 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 2 1 1 333 1 skills critical thniking integrate 83 CT - integrating knowledge from other disciplines 28 2.2% 7 10 6 1 4 4 6 7 11 1 9 18 11 1734 1 skills critical thniking integrate 86 CT - synthesis 9 0.7% 1 2 4 0 2 4 1 2 2 1 3 5 2 735 1 skills critical thniking integrate 84 CT - integrate theory and practice 10 0.8% 1 6 1 0 2 3 0 1 6 2 4 4 4 636 1 skills critical thniking manner 87 CT - open-mindedness / flexible thinking 6 0.5% 2 2 1 0 1 1 2 1 2 0 1 5 1 537 1 skills critical thniking manner 88 CT - complexity of thinking 8 0.6% 1 3 4 0 0 4 1 1 2 1 3 4 3 538 1 skills critical thniking manner 129 CT - intellectual independence 9 0.7% 5 2 1 0 1 3 1 0 5 2 4 3 4 539 1 skills critical thniking manner 81 CT - creative thinking 2 0.2% 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 140 1 skills critical thniking manner 93 CT - thinking appropriate to discipline 2 0.2% 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 241 1 skills critical thniking manner 89 CT - systematically thinking 2 0.2% 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 242 1 skills critical thniking manner 82 CT - thinking like a researcher 2 0.2% 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 2

43 critical thniking TotalCritical thinking skills: analysis, synthesis, problem solving, integrating knowledge from disciplines, open mindedness, developing ideas

166 13.1% 26 68 54 3 14 63 21 31 50 23 67 75 54 111

44 1 skills project mgt. general 56 project management - general 8 0.6% 1 3 0 4 0 2 3 2 1 2 3 3 3 545 1 skills project mgt. ambitious 183 took on ambitious project 2 0.2% 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 146 1 skills project mgt. evolved 184 project evolved 3 0.2% 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 347 1 skills project mgt. expectations 182 realized or surpassed expectations 2 0.2% 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 248 1 skills project mgt. funding 180 obtained funding for project 2 0.2% 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1

2/22/2012

Part 6, Page: 31

Line Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 ID Description count % NS SS Hum Prof Self Red Tan Wht Yellow H M L M F49 1 skills project mgt. organiz 70 project management - organization 11 0.9% 2 4 4 0 1 7 0 1 3 5 4 2 6 550 1 skills project mgt. organiz 74 project management - pre project planning 3 0.2% 0 1 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 151 1 skills project mgt. organiz 73 project management - focus / reign in large project 4 0.3% 1 1 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 152 1 skills project mgt. organiz 69 project management - planning skills 4 0.3% 3 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 453 1 skills project mgt. organiz 72 project management - goal setting 3 0.2% 1 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 2

54 1 skills project mgt. own 68 project management - see major project through from beginning to end 57 4.5% 14 16 16 1 10 22 8 5 22 19 17 21 22 35

55 1 skills project mgt. own 59 project management - taking responsibility 11 0.9% 3 2 5 0 1 6 1 0 4 2 1 8 3 856 1 skills project mgt. own 57 project management - working independently 26 2.0% 9 12 1 3 1 8 5 1 12 9 10 7 12 1457 1 skills project mgt. own 58 project management - used own data 1 0.1% 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 158 1 skills project mgt. timeman 60 time management - general 30 2.4% 13 8 4 3 2 10 6 3 11 12 7 11 13 1759 1 skills project mgt. troublsh 62 project management - troubleshooting 11 0.9% 4 3 1 0 3 2 1 3 5 1 2 8 3 860 1 skills project mgt. troublsh 65 project management - troubleshoot experiment difficulties 7 0.6% 4 1 0 0 2 3 0 0 4 2 1 4 2 5

61 1 skills project mgt. troublsh 63 project management - troubleshooting - repeat experiments when necessary 3 0.2% 2 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 2

62 1 skills project mgt. troublsh 67 project management - troubleshoot difficulties in foreign country 1 0.1% 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

63 1 skills project mgt. troublsh 64 project management - troubleshoot equipment difficulties 1 0.1% 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 164 1 skills project mgt. troublsh 66 project management - troubleshooting - overcame adversity 6 0.5% 5 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 2 3 1 3 3

65 project mgt. Total Managing a large project: seeing it through, persisting, managing time, planning, organizing, problem solving, working independently 196 15.4% 64 62 39 11 20 85 25 18 68 60 54 82 76 120

66 1 skills research general 1 research skills - general 25 2.0% 5 16 2 0 2 7 3 4 11 3 13 9 12 1367 1 skills research analysis 25 research - interpreting findings 6 0.5% 2 3 1 0 0 1 1 4 0 0 4 2 0 668 1 skills research analysis 26 research - problem-solve unanticipated findings 4 0.3% 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 1 2 1 2 269 1 skills research analysis 27 research - data analysis 4 0.3% 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 2 2 0 470 1 skills research comp 5 computer skills - general 9 0.7% 5 2 2 0 0 3 1 1 4 4 3 2 3 671 1 skills research comp 7 computer skills - web page setup 2 0.2% 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 072 1 skills research cond 13 research design - general 9 0.7% 1 6 1 1 0 2 1 2 4 2 2 5 5 473 1 skills research cond 23 research - field work specific to discipline 8 0.6% 1 5 2 0 0 6 0 2 0 1 5 2 4 474 1 skills research cond 4 research - conducting - data gathering 6 0.5% 0 5 0 1 0 0 3 3 0 0 4 2 1 575 1 skills research cond 3 research - conducting - lab skills 10 0.8% 9 1 0 0 0 5 1 2 2 4 5 1 3 776 1 skills research cond 2 research - conducting 10 0.8% 5 3 1 1 0 5 3 0 2 1 7 2 6 477 1 skills research cond 28 research methods - general 2 0.2% 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 078 1 skills research litreview 19 literature review - locating sources 6 0.5% 3 2 1 0 0 4 0 0 2 2 3 1 4 279 1 skills research litreview 18 literature review - analysis 4 0.3% 0 2 2 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 2 280 1 skills research litreview 20 literature review - evaluating materials 6 0.5% 2 0 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 3 1 2 1 581 1 skills research litreview 17 literature review - general 6 0.5% 2 3 1 0 0 4 0 0 2 2 2 2 1 582 1 skills research presenting 24 research - presenting findings 7 0.6% 1 3 2 1 0 1 2 2 2 0 5 2 0 783 1 skills research quant 9 quantitative skills - general 3 0.2% 2 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 1 1 284 1 skills research quant 10 quantitative skills - analysis 3 0.2% 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 1

85 research Total Research skills: literature reviews, research design, technical lab and data gathering skills, field work, data analysis 130 10.2% 41 60 21 5 3 54 15 26 35 26 63 41 51 79

86 1 skills technical general 106 technical skills - general 7 0.6% 4 2 1 0 0 3 1 1 2 4 0 3 3 487 1 skills technical applied 109 technical skills - real-world application 17 1.3% 6 5 5 1 0 5 2 5 5 3 8 6 7 1088 1 skills technical disc 107 technical skills - specific to discipline 16 1.3% 6 5 4 0 1 4 1 6 5 5 5 6 7 989 1 skills technical otherdisc 108 technical skills - in other fields 1 0.1% 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

90 technical Total Technical skills: specific to a discipline or real world application 41 3.2% 17 12 10 1 1 13 4 12 12 13 13 15 17 24

91 2 knowledge broad picture context 139 understanding - larger context - personal experience 5 0.4% 0 3 2 0 0 3 0 1 1 1 2 2 0 592 2 knowledge broad picture context 140 understanding - larger context - research 7 0.6% 4 3 0 0 0 5 0 0 2 2 3 2 3 493 2 knowledge broad picture cultural 148 understanding - cultural experience in another country 5 0.4% 0 3 2 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 3 2 2 394 2 knowledge broad picture relationships 141 understanding - personal relationships 1 0.1% 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 195 2 knowledge broad picture research 127 understanding - research process 15 1.2% 8 3 2 1 1 6 5 2 2 2 8 5 6 9

96 2 knowledge broad picture research 126 understanding - how research in the field applies to specific research questions 2 0.2% 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 1

97 2 knowledge broad picture writing 128 understanding - writing process 3 0.2% 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 2

2/22/2012

Part 6, Page: 32

Line Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 ID Description count % NS SS Hum Prof Self Red Tan Wht Yellow H M L M F

98 broad picture Total Understanding their discipline or research in a broader context or having a broadening personal experience 38 3.0% 12 14 10 1 1 19 7 5 7 7 19 12 13 25

99 2 knowledge disciplinary general 118 disciplinary knowledge - general 26 2.0% 5 8 11 1 1 6 4 6 10 4 8 14 11 15100 2 knowledge disciplinary ethics 122 disciplinary knowledge, ethics 2 0.2% 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0101 2 knowledge disciplinary expertise 119 disciplinary knowledge - expertise 1 0.1% 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0102 2 knowledge disciplinary practice 120 disciplinary knowledge - ways of practice 2 0.2% 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 0103 2 knowledge disciplinary theory 124 disciplinary knowledge - theoretical foundation 5 0.4% 1 1 3 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 2104 2 knowledge disciplinary thinking 121 disciplinary knowledge - ways of thinking 2 0.2% 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 0

105 disciplinary Total Gaining disciplinary knowledge in a particular area or relating to disciplinary theory or ethics 38 3.0% 8 9 19 1 1 12 6 7 13 9 10 19 21 17

106 2 knowledge personal general 110 self-understanding - general 14 1.1% 5 3 6 0 0 6 5 1 2 5 4 5 3 11107 2 knowledge personal abilities 111 self-understanding - of own abilities 19 1.5% 6 5 6 0 2 7 1 0 11 8 4 7 8 11108 2 knowledge personal interests 115 self-understanding - of interests (career clarification) 34 2.7% 11 10 10 0 3 11 6 3 14 5 15 14 10 24109 2 knowledge personal limitations 112 self-understanding - of own limitations 19 1.5% 5 7 4 0 3 5 0 3 11 6 9 4 14 5

110 2 knowledge personal poor 113 self-understanding - of lack of quality in performance - general 15 1.2% 5 5 3 1 1 2 3 3 7 6 5 4 10 5

111 2 knowledge personal selfcrit 116 self-understanding - self-criticism / self-evaluation 6 0.5% 2 1 2 1 0 3 1 1 1 2 3 1 3 3112 2 knowledge personal style 117 self-understanding - of learning style 3 0.2% 2 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 2 1

113 personal Total Gaining self-understanding of abilities, limitations, interests, and performance 110 8.7% 36 31 32 2 9 34 18 11 47 33 42 35 50 60

114 2 knowledge value argument 133 learned importance of substantiating opinions 3 0.2% 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 2115 2 knowledge value creatproc 132 learned importance of creative process 4 0.3% 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 0 3 0 1 3 1 3116 2 knowledge value experdesign 131 learned importance of experimental design 3 0.2% 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 1 1 2117 2 knowledge value hardwork 135 learned importance of hard work 14 1.1% 3 3 5 0 3 4 0 0 10 7 3 4 9 5118 2 knowledge value modify 134 learned importance of changing directions 1 0.1% 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0119 2 knowledge value planning 137 learned importance of planning 6 0.5% 2 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 3 2 4120 2 knowledge value resquest 136 learned importance of clearly defined research question 2 0.2% 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 2

121 value TotalGaining an awareness of the importance of various practices relating to research: planning, experimental design, hard work, flexibility

33 2.6% 6 11 11 0 5 8 1 4 20 10 11 12 15 18

122 3 disposition behavior maturity 151 gained maturity 3 0.2% 2 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 1123 3 disposition behavior patience 155 learned patience necessary for research 6 0.5% 2 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 5 0 2 4 6 0124 3 disposition behavior perseverance 166 perseverance 12 0.9% 7 2 3 0 0 6 1 2 3 3 6 3 3 9125 3 disposition behavior responsible 167 learned how to be responsible / accountable 5 0.4% 4 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 3 2126 3 disposition behavior workethic 149 self-discipline / work ethic 12 0.9% 3 2 7 0 0 6 2 1 3 3 4 5 9 3

127 behavior Total Developed inclination toward useful scholarly behaviors: patience, perseverance, responsibility, maturity 38 3.0% 18 6 11 0 3 17 4 5 12 11 13 14 23 15

128 3 disposition confidence general 156 self-confidence - general 82 6.5% 22 30 26 1 3 45 16 2 19 22 29 31 24 58129 3 disposition confidence academic 157 self-confidence - academic - general 31 2.4% 11 9 8 0 3 9 5 4 13 11 11 9 10 21

130 3 disposition confidence academic 158 self-confidence - academic - ability to do independent research 13 1.0% 4 5 3 1 0 5 7 1 0 3 3 7 5 8

131 3 disposition confidence academic 159 self-confidence - academic - writing 4 0.3% 2 0 2 0 0 3 1 0 0 1 0 3 1 3132 3 disposition confidence academic 160 self-confidence - academic - oral presentation ability 1 0.1% 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0133 3 disposition confidence personal 164 self-confidence - personal - complete long-term project 18 1.4% 5 7 6 0 0 8 3 0 7 6 3 9 3 15134 3 disposition confidence personal 161 self-confidence - personal - general 4 0.3% 2 1 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 3 1 3135 3 disposition confidence personal 165 self-confidence - personal - creative abilities 4 0.3% 1 1 2 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 3136 3 disposition confidence personal 163 self-confidence - personal - reaching goals 3 0.2% 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 2 2 1137 3 disposition confidence personal 162 self-confidence - personal - self-discipline 1 0.1% 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1

138 confidence Total Gained self-confidence in personal or academic abilities: ability to complete a major project, do research, writing ability 161 12.7% 48 54 51 2 6 77 34 8 42 45 50 66 48 113

139 3 disposition motivations collab 146 motivation - toward collaboration on project 1 0.1% 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1140 3 disposition motivations critical thinking 144 motivation - toward critical thinking 2 0.2% 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2141 3 disposition motivations project 147 motivation - toward project 28 2.2% 4 9 12 2 1 9 3 7 9 8 12 8 11 17142 3 disposition motivations research 143 motivation - toward research 16 1.3% 7 6 3 0 0 6 0 1 9 3 10 3 6 10143 3 disposition motivations writing 145 motivation - toward writing 1 0.1% 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0

144 motivations Total Developed interest in the topic of the project or toward research, writing or critical thinking 48 3.8% 13 15 17 2 1 17 4 9 18 12 22 14 18 30

2/22/2012

Part 6, Page: 33

Line Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 ID Description count % NS SS Hum Prof Self Red Tan Wht Yellow H M L M F145 3 disposition personal accomplish 150 developed sense of accomplishment 17 1.3% 3 7 6 0 1 4 3 4 6 7 6 4 5 12146 3 disposition personal reflect 168 self reflection 1 0.1% 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0147 3 disposition personal tolerance 154 tolerance of obstacles, risk, failure, ambiguity 6 0.5% 2 2 2 0 0 3 1 2 0 0 3 3 2 4

148 personal Total Gaining self-understanding of abilities, limitations, interests, and performance 24 1.9% 5 9 9 0 1 8 4 6 6 8 9 7 8 16

149 4 prof devel profdevel general 169 professional development - general 17 1.3% 3 6 6 0 2 5 5 5 2 0 4 13 5 12150 4 prof devel profdevel business 174 professional development - created sustainable business 1 0.1% 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0

151 4 prof devel profdevel conference 170 professional development - attended professional conference 8 0.6% 2 3 3 0 0 4 0 0 4 3 1 4 1 7

152 4 prof devel profdevel improve 190 professional development - mentor able to give better reference 1 0.1% 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1

153 4 prof devel profdevel internship 171 professional development - gained supervised internship hours 2 0.2% 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 2

154 4 prof devel profdevel jobprep 175 professional development - helped prepare for / led directly to job 13 1.0% 2 6 5 0 0 7 0 3 3 1 5 7 3 10

155 4 prof devel profdevel portfolio 176 professional development - provided professional portfolio 1 0.1% 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1

156 4 prof devel profdevel postproj 178 professional development - learned ways of developing project post-graduation 1 0.1% 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1

157 4 prof devel profdevel publishable 173 professional development - produced work that was or will be published (or is publishable) 6 0.5% 5 1 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 0 0 6 2 4

158 4 prof devel profdevel recognition 177 professional development - received recognition for work 4 0.3% 3 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 3 1 3159 4 prof devel profdevel schoolprep 179 preparation for grad school/professional school 31 2.4% 19 8 4 0 0 15 4 3 9 4 12 15 14 17

160 profdevel TotalBenefit relating to professional development for a career or graduate school: better preparation for graduate school, made professional contacts, attended a conference, developed a product or publication

85 6.7% 34 27 22 0 2 35 11 17 22 8 26 51 27 58

161 Grand Total 1271 100.0% 373 430 362 30 75 521 175 185 389 306 467 497 480 790162 163 Total: 1271 373 430 362 30 75 521 175 185 389 306 467 497 480 790164 % of total for group: 1 29% 34% 29% 2% 6% 41% 14% 15% 31% 24% 37% 39% 38% 62%165 166 5 none none no benefits 185 none - no benefits 11 3 4 0 1 3 1 2 2 6 3 5 3 2 9

A group 3 coding as "general" indicates that the topic was mentioned without being more specific.

2/22/2012

Part 6, Page: 34

All BY MAJOR DIVISION BY SCHOOL BY GPA GROUP BY GENDER

Line Group 1 Group 2 Description count % NS SS Hum Prof Self Red Tan Wht Yellow H M L M F

51 skills collaboration Total Working with the mentor and others: teamwork, following directions,

responding to feedback, getting help 24 2% 7 9 6 0 2 11 5 3 5 4 10 10 10 14

22 1 skills communication Total Written and oral communication skills 137 11% 37 43 49 2 6 68 14 23 32 36 58 43 48 89

421 skills critical thniking Total

Critical thinking skills: analysis, synthesis, problem solving, integrating knowledge from disciplines, open mindedness, developing ideas

164 13% 25 67 54 3 14 63 20 31 49 23 67 73 53 110

641 skills project mgt. Total Managing a large project: seeing it through, persisting, managing

time, planning, organizing, problem solving, working independently 194 15% 63 62 38 11 20 85 24 18 67 59 54 81 74 120

841 skills research Total Research skills: literature reviews, research design, technical lab

and data gathering skills, field work, data analysis 130 10% 41 60 21 5 3 54 15 26 35 26 63 41 51 79

89 1 skills technical Total Technical skills: specific to a discipline or real world application 43 3% 18 12 11 1 1 13 5 12 13 13 13 17 18 25

skills subtotal: 692 55% 191 253 179 22 46 294 83 113 201 161 265 265 254 437

972 knowledge broad picture Total Understanding their discipline or research in a broader context or

having a broadening personal experience 39 3% 12 15 10 1 1 19 7 5 8 7 20 12 14 25

1042 knowledge disciplinary Total Gaining disciplinary knowledge in a particular area or relating to

disciplinary theory or ethics 33 3% 7 8 17 1 0 12 4 7 10 8 8 17 18 15

1122 knowledge personal Total Gaining self-understanding of abilities, limitations, interests, and

performance 109 9% 36 30 32 2 9 33 20 11 45 33 41 35 50 59

1202 knowledge value Total

Gaining an awareness of the importance of various practices relating to research: planning, experimental design, hard work, flexibility

34 3% 7 11 11 0 5 8 1 4 21 10 12 12 16 18

knowledge subtotal: 215 17% 62 64 70 4 15 72 32 27 84 58 81 76 98 117

1263 disposition behavior Total Developed inclination toward useful scholarly behaviors: patience,

perseverance, responsibility, maturity 39 3% 18 6 12 0 3 17 4 5 13 12 13 14 24 15

1373 disposition confidence Total Gained self-confidence in personal or academic abilities: ability to

complete a major project, do research, writing ability 161 13% 48 55 51 1 6 77 34 8 42 45 49 67 48 113

1433 disposition motivations Total Developed interest in the topic of the project or toward research,

writing or critical thinking 46 4% 12 14 17 2 1 16 4 9 17 12 20 14 17 29

1473 disposition personal Total Developed a sense of accomplishment, or inclination to overcome

obstacles 23 2% 5 8 9 0 1 8 3 6 6 8 8 7 8 15

dispositions subtotal: 269 21% 83 83 89 3 11 118 45 28 78 77 90 102 97 172

159

4 prof devel profdevel TotalBenefit relating to professional development for a career or graduate school: better preparation for graduate school, made professional contacts, attended a conference, developed a product or publication

84 7% 34 26 22 0 2 35 10 17 22 8 26 50 26 58

Total: 1260 100% 370 426 360 29 74 519 170 185 385 304 462 493 475 784 Percent within subgrouping: 29% 34% 29% 2% 6% 41% 13% 15% 31% 24% 37% 39% 38% 62%

% of capstones with completed post‐fac survey: 31% 31% 27% 7% 5% 28% 14% 30% 29% 25% 41% 35% 42% 58%% of overall capstones in database: 23% 34% 25% 16% 2% 29% 21% 16% 34% 24% 38% 38% 41% 59%

Table Mentor Q2 ‐ 2: Summary Counts of Mentor's Comments, Aggregated at Group 2 Level

2/22/2012

Part 6, Page: 35

Line All BY MAJOR DIVISION BY SCHOOL BY GPA GROUP BY GENDER

Group 1 Group 2 Description count % NS SS Hum Prof Self Red Tan Wht Yellow H M L M F

5 1 skills collaboration Total Working with the mentor and others: teamwork, following directions, responding to feedback, getting help 25 2% 2% 2% 2% 0% 3% 2% 3% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2%

21 1 skills communication Total Written and oral communication skills 138 11% 10% 10% 14% 7% 8% 13% 8% 12% 8% 12% 13% 9% 10% 11%

40 1 skills critical thniking TotalCritical thinking skills: analysis, synthesis, problem solving, integrating knowledge from disciplines, open mindedness, developing ideas

166 13% 7% 16% 15% 10% 19% 12% 12% 17% 13% 8% 15% 15% 11% 14%

61 1 skills project mgt. Total Managing a large project: seeing it through, persisting, managing time, planning, organizing, problem solving, working independently 196 15% 17% 15% 11% 38% 27% 16% 14% 10% 17% 19% 12% 16% 16% 15%

80 1 skills research Total Research skills: literature reviews, research design, technical lab and data gathering skills, field work, data analysis 130 10% 11% 14% 6% 17% 4% 10% 9% 14% 9% 9% 14% 8% 11% 10%

84 1 skills technical Total Technical skills: specific to a discipline or real world application 41 3% 5% 3% 3% 3% 1% 3% 3% 6% 3% 4% 3% 3% 4% 3%

skills subtotal: 696 55% 52% 59% 50% 76% 62% 57% 49% 61% 52% 53% 57% 54% 53% 56%

91 2 knowledge broad picture Total Understanding their discipline or research in a broader context or having a broadening personal experience 38 3% 3% 4% 3% 3% 1% 4% 4% 3% 2% 2% 4% 2% 3% 3%

97 2 knowledge disciplinary Total Gaining disciplinary knowledge in a particular area or relating to disciplinary theory or ethics 38 3% 2% 2% 5% 3% 0% 2% 2% 4% 3% 3% 2% 3% 4% 2%

104 2 knowledge personal Total Gaining self-understanding of abilities, limitations, interests, and performance 110 9% 10% 7% 9% 7% 12% 6% 12% 6% 12% 11% 9% 7% 11% 8%

111 2 knowledge value TotalGaining an awareness of the importance of various practices relating to research: planning, experimental design, hard work, flexibility

33 3% 2% 3% 3% 0% 7% 2% 1% 2% 5% 3% 3% 2% 3% 2%

knowledge subtotal: 219 17% 17% 15% 19% 14% 20% 14% 19% 15% 22% 19% 18% 15% 21% 15%

116 3 disposition behavior Total Developed inclination toward useful scholarly behaviors: patience, perseverance, responsibility, maturity 38 3% 5% 1% 3% 0% 4% 3% 2% 3% 3% 4% 3% 3% 5% 2%

126 3 disposition confidence Total Gained self-confidence in personal or academic abilities: ability to complete a major project, do research, writing ability 161 13% 13% 13% 14% 3% 8% 15% 20% 4% 11% 15% 11% 14% 10% 14%

131 3 disposition motivations Total Developed interest in the topic of the project or toward research, writing or critical thinking 48 4% 3% 3% 5% 7% 1% 3% 2% 5% 4% 4% 4% 3% 4% 4%

134 3 disposition personal Total Developed a sense of accomplishment, or inclination to overcome obstacles 24 2% 1% 2% 3% 0% 1% 2% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 1% 2% 2%

dispositions subtotal: 271 21% 22% 19% 25% 10% 15% 23% 26% 15% 20% 25% 19% 21% 20% 22%

145 4 prof devel profdevel Total

Benefit relating to professional development for a career or graduate school: better preparation for graduate school, made professional contacts, attended a conference, developed a product or publication

85 7% 9% 6% 6% 0% 3% 7% 6% 9% 6% 3% 6% 10% 5% 7%

Grand Total professional development subtotal: 1271 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Total: 1271 100% 373 430 362 30 75 521 175 185 389 306 467 497 480 790x Variation of percentages across rows is highlighed using Excel conditional formatting. Prof and Self‐designed majors were excluded due to low N's.

Table Metnor Q2 ‐ 3: Percent of Responsed for each Group2 Item within Student Groupings

2/22/2012

Part 6, Page: 36

Table Mentor Q4 ‐ 1: Detailed Listing and Counts for Faculty Survey Question: Please share any other observations you have about this capstone you think may be of interest to the study.

Counts BY MAJOR DIVISION BY SCHOOLLine Group 1 Group 2 sense ID Text Pos Obs. Neg Total NS SS Hum Prof Self nav Red Tan Wht Yellow1 advising coadv n 28 structure ‐ problem coordinating advising 0 0 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 12 advising coadv n 42 structure ‐ difficult to do co‐mentoring 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 13 advising coadv o 26 Structure ‐ mentoring done by outside adviser 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 04 advising knowstu p 4 benefit ‐ able to advise student better after 3 0 0 3 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 05 advising knowstu p 5 benefit ‐ able to champion student better after 2 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 06 advising knowstu p 14 benefit ‐ adviser understood student's good abilities better 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 07 advising knowstu p 15 benefit ‐ adviser understood student's learning problems better 2 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 18 advising load n 22 structure ‐ advising problem ‐ too many students 0 0 3 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 09 advising load n 33 structure ‐ mentor work load too high 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 010 advising load n 58 project took large mentor time/effort 0 0 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 011 advising mentorben p 44 benefit ‐ scholarly impact on mentor 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 012 advising mentorben p 49 benefit ‐ mentoring student positive exp for mentor 28 0 0 28 12 6 6 2 2 0 7 2 5 1413 advising mentorben p 88 benefit ‐ mentoring student positive exp for mentor due to ability to choose students 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 114 advising mentorneg n 77 negative experience for mentor 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 115 advising problem n 59 challenge to shepherd weak project to success 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 016 advising problem n 76 student didn't consult with mentor enough 0 0 4 4 2 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 217 advising problem n 82 mentor needed to give student deadlines/ schedule 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 218 advising problem n 85 faculty forced to mentor without background expertise in project area 0 0 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 119 advising Total 38 2 21 61 28 16 10 2 5 0 16 9 12 2420 facilities facilities n 20 facilities ‐ encountered lab or other facilities problems that hampered project 0 0 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 021 facilities facilities n 102 Computer equipment trouble 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 122 facilities facilities n 50 facilities ‐ student would have benefited from being able to do research at off‐campus site 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 023 facilities facilities p 19 facilities ‐ access to primary sources via Internet 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 024 facilities Total 1 0 4 5 1 1 2 1 0 0 2 0 2 125 prep prep n 21 preparation ‐need to prepare students better 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 026 prep prep n 43 preparation ‐ need to prepare students systematically 0 0 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 027 prep prep p 600 preparation ‐ student well prepared 3 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 128 prep prep n 68 preparation ‐ business plan projects need better prep 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 029 prep prep o 89 preparation ‐ curriculum should prepare for capstone starting first year 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 130 prep Total 3 1 4 8 1 3 2 1 1 0 5 0 1 231 structure capexp n 23 structure ‐ capstone not valuable for all students 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 032 structure capexp n 78 should not require capstones of non‐motivated students 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 133 structure capexp n 84 capstones are waste of time 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 134 structure capexp p 6 benefit ‐ capstone experience valuable for student, even if product not exceptional 5 0 0 5 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 1 1 035 structure capexp p 73 capstone gave non‐stellar student a chance to shine 3 0 0 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 136 structure capexp p 87 capstone method a good experience, should be kept 4 0 0 4 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 437 structure credits n 62 this project didn't deserve number of credits awarded 0 0 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 038 structure dblmaj n 40 structure ‐ double majors: only do combined if similar methods 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 039 structure dblmaj n 47 structure ‐ this double major capstone created problem 0 0 6 6 0 2 0 1 3 0 0 0 3 340 structure dblmaj n 67 structure ‐ double majors: only viable for gifted students 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 041 structure dblmaj p 55 structure ‐ this double major capstone done successfully 2 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 042 structure grading n 25 structure ‐ lack of grading for the first half of the project a problem 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 043 structure grading n 53 structure ‐ comprehensive exams a poor structure for capstones 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 044 structure grading n 64 adviser should have option to divert from thesis to comp exam if project flounders 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 045 structure grading n 66 adviser should have option to divert double major project to single, if floundering 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 046 structure grading o 24 structure ‐ students should expect grade to count process as well as product 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 047 structure grading p 39 structure ‐ oral presentation option, as opposed to only writing, is helpful 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 048 structure outcome p 79 project involved, may benefit community, others 4 0 0 4 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 149 structure structure n 603 capstones time should have been longer, e.g. two terms 0 0 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 250 structure structure o 72 comp exam should force student to integrate courses/topics 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 051 structure structure p 27 structure ‐ opportunity to present results in non‐class venue 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 052 structure structure p 30 structure ‐ reflective component most valuable 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

2/22/2012 1

Part 6, Page: 37

Counts BY MAJOR DIVISION BY SCHOOLLine Group 1 Group 2 sense ID Text Pos Obs. Neg Total NS SS Hum Prof Self nav Red Tan Wht Yellow53 structure structure p 60 capstones work well with motivated and capable students 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 054 structure structure p 61 project successfully integrated info from multiple courses/sources 2 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 055 structure structure p 74 capstones benefit students who make effort 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

56 structure students n 34student attribute ‐ capstone a challenge for technically capable students that aren't as creative 0 0 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

57 structure students o 80 student's personal or family problems (e.g. illness ) impacted this project 0 7 0 7 1 3 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 758 structure topic n 29 Structure ‐ too difficult to synthesis a critical and creative project 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 059 structure topic o 32 structure ‐ topic selection: choosing topic of interest to student is key for weaker students, in 0 3 0 3 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 160 structure Total 25 12 26 63 8 22 23 3 7 0 11 8 21 2361 stubenefit employ p 46 benefit ‐ product viable business 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 062 stubenefit employ p 65 project may aid future employment opportunities 5 0 0 5 1 3 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 163 stubenefit gen dev p 54 benefit ‐ student benefited/developed in general 25 0 0 25 13 6 4 2 0 0 7 4 2 1264 stubenefit gradschl p 16 benefit ‐ valuable prep for graduate programs 3 0 0 3 1 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 065 stubenefit projmgt p 1 benefit ‐ managing large project 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 166 stubenefit projmgt p 8 benefit ‐ learning what is required to do a large project 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 067 stubenefit scholar p 2 benefit ‐ experiencing rewards of research 5 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 168 stubenefit scholar p 7 benefit ‐ experience as practitioner of discipline 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 069 stubenefit scholar p 9 benefit ‐ opportunity to integrate disciplines 6 0 0 6 2 3 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 070 stubenefit scholar p 10 benefit ‐ opportunity to integrate academic and personal interests 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 071 stubenefit scholar p 11 benefit ‐ self understanding as practitioner of discipline 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 172 stubenefit scholar p 45 benefit ‐ product potentially publishable 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 073 stubenefit self p 3 benefit ‐ self confidence 6 0 0 6 3 2 1 0 0 0 2 3 0 174 stubenefit self p 12 benefit ‐ student gained self knowledge of high abilities 3 0 0 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 175 stubenefit capvsreg n 75 would have benefited more from regular course 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 176 stubenefit capvsreg p 13 Benefit ‐ student benefitted more/differently than in regular course 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 177 stubenefit Total 66 0 1 67 23 26 16 2 0 0 28 10 9 2078 stuperform ability n 83 student's project beyond his/her ability 0 0 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 179 stuperform ability p 93 student's high ability contributed to successful capstone 3 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 080 stuperform ability n 601 student's lack of self‐confidence hindered project 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 181 stuperform effort n 51 student effort ‐ poor 0 0 10 10 3 6 1 0 0 0 4 2 2 282 stuperform effort p 48 student effort ‐ good or exceptionally good 10 0 0 10 3 3 3 1 0 0 5 0 3 283 stuperform feedback n 90 student required negative feedback, and did not respond well 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 084 stuperform feedback o 86 student required negative feedback, but responded well 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 185 stuperform feedback p 63 student responsiveness to criticism a plus 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 086 stuperform motiv n 36 student attribute ‐ not motivated 0 0 8 8 5 1 1 0 1 0 4 1 0 387 stuperform prep n 31 preparation ‐ student project topic was too advanced for student's level 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 088 stuperform prep n 52 preparation ‐ student poorly prepared 0 0 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 189 stuperform prep n 69 student not prepared for theoretical challenges of research 0 0 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 090 stuperform prep n 71 preparation ‐ student needed a specific course to better prepare 0 0 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 091 stuperform prep p 70 preparation ‐ student well prepared in project area by outside experience 4 0 0 4 3 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 1 092 stuperform prep p 81 prior course with mentor meant good preparation 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 193 stuperform product n 57 capstone outcome ‐ poor, generally 0 0 9 9 3 1 2 0 3 0 3 1 0 594 stuperform product n 17 student performed poorly ‐ generally 0 0 3 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 195 stuperform product n 610 student performed poorly ‐ writing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 096 stuperform product n 611 student performed poorly ‐ CT 0 0 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 197 stuperform product n 612 student performed poorly ‐ time management 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 298 stuperform product p 35 student performance ‐ good or exceptionally good 21 0 0 21 5 5 7 1 3 0 14 3 1 399 stuperform product p 56 capstone outcome ‐ good or excellent 25 0 0 25 3 10 8 1 2 1 7 2 6 10100 stuperform capvsreg n 18 student performed worse that in regular course 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0101 stuperform capvsreg p 38 student performed better than in regular course 8 0 0 8 1 3 3 0 1 0 4 2 0 2

stuperform Total 74 1 48 123 32 38 38 3 11 1 52 15 20 36Grand Total 207 16 104 327 93 106 91 12 24 1 114 42 65 106

2/22/2012 2

Part 6, Page: 38

Table Mentor Q3 ‐ 1: Codebook Listing and Detailed Counts for Faculty Survey Questions: Please describe areas where the student was exceptionally well prepared.Please describe areas where the student should have been better prepared for this capstone.

DEFICIENT

Counts for Prep BY MAJOR DIVISION BY SCHOOL GPA Gender

Line Group 1 Group 2 ID Textdefi‐ cient

excep‐tional NS SS HU PR Self R T W Y

H M L M F

1 General all gen all 101 general ‐ well prepared in general (or not) 2 19 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 1

2 General all T Well prepared in general 2 19 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 1

3 Collab Collab 1 collaboration skills ‐ attending meetings 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

4 Collab Collab 2 collaboration skills ‐ following directions 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1

5 Collab Collab 3 collaboration skills ‐ general 9 7 2 4 0 0 2 3 1 2 3 2 7 0 3 6

6 Collab Collab 4 collaboration skills ‐ getting help from others 8 4 0 5 2 0 1 4 0 1 3 3 2 3 4 4

7 Collab Collab 102 collaboration skills ‐ making scholarly contacts 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1

8 Collab Collab 5 collaboration skills ‐ responding to feedback 7 8 3 2 1 1 0 3 1 3 0 5 1 1 4 3

9

Collab TotalCollaboration skills: attending meetings, following directions, responding to feedback

29 21 6 13 4 1 4 12 3 6 8 13 12 4 13 16

10 Commun com general 103 communication skills ‐ general 1 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

11 Commun oral 92 oral communication ‐ general 1 10 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

12 Commun oral 40 oral exam experience 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0

13 Commun oral 41 oral presentation skills 5 14 2 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 1 2 0 3 0 5

14 Commun write gen 68 writing ‐ general 81 141 29 27 24 1 0 34 8 13 26 40 31 10 30 51

15 Commun write ‐ basic 65 writing ‐ citation style 6 1 2 1 3 0 0 0 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 4

16 Commun write ‐ basic 70 writing ‐ mechanics 14 3 2 3 8 0 1 5 0 5 4 7 6 1 8 6

17 Commun write ‐ basic 77 writing ‐ technical terminology 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0

18 Commun write ‐ org 82 writing ‐ long work/research work 6 2 0 1 1 0 4 0 0 1 5 3 3 0 1 5

19 Commun write ‐ org 71 writing ‐ organization 9 7 2 2 5 0 0 2 0 2 5 4 5 0 2 7

20 Commun write ‐ org 78 writing ‐ thematic development 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

21 Commun write ‐ oth 67 writing ‐ foreign language skills 1 5 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

22 Commun write ‐ oth 69 writing ‐ integrating sources 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 2

23 Commun write ‐ stylistic 64 writing ‐ being concise 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0

24 Commun write ‐ stylistic 66 writing ‐ clarity 8 11 3 3 2 0 0 5 0 2 1 2 6 0 3 5

25 Commun write ‐ stylistic 90 writing ‐ persuasive 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

26 Commun write ‐ stylistic 74 writing ‐ reflective 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

27 Commun write ‐ stylistic 75 writing ‐ scholarly manner 4 1 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 1 1 2 0 4

28 Commun write ‐ stylistic 76 writing ‐ style 5 4 4 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 2 3 0 5

29 Commun write ‐ stylistic 86 writing ‐ style of discipline 7 2 5 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 3 2 3 2 3 4

30Commun Total Communication skills ‐ general, written, oral 155 222 57 40 52 1 5 58 17 31 49 67 63 25 52 103

31 CritThk CT gen 12 CT ‐ general 22 29 5 5 10 0 2 3 1 6 12 9 7 6 5 17

32 CritThk CT ‐ synthesis 89 CT ‐ originality/creativity 2 12 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 2

33 CritThk CT ‐ synthesis 15 CT ‐ problem solving 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

34 CritThk CT ‐ synthesis 83 CT ‐ synthesis 4 11 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 2 1 1 3

35 CritThk CT anal 88 CT ‐ analysis of primary material 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1

36 CritThk CT anal 8 CT ‐ analysis skills 11 12 1 7 1 0 2 3 0 1 7 6 2 3 4 7

37 CritThk CT anal 105 CT ‐ reading closely 7 16 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 7 5 2 0 2 5

38 CritThk CT anal 17 CT‐ analysis of secondary material 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 4 3 2

39 CritThk CT anal 18 CT ‐analysis, drawing conclusions 6 5 1 4 1 0 0 2 1 3 0 2 1 3 0 6

2/22/2012

Part 6, Page: 39

DEFICIENT




H M L M F

40 CritThk CT argument 10 CT ‐ applying information 3 4 1 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 1 2 1

41 CritThk CT argument 11 CT ‐ argumentation 14 2 3 6 5 0 0 3 1 7 3 6 7 1 8 6

42 CritThk CT argument 16 CT ‐ thinking approp to discipline 3 1 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 3

43 CritThk CT argument 19 CT‐ applying principles/theory 11 8 1 6 3 0 1 4 0 4 3 4 7 0 3 8

44 CritThk CT ‐mult views 80 CT ‐ addressing opposing views/information 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 2

45 CritThk CT ‐mult views 14 CT ‐ open mindedness 3 2 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 1 2 1

46 CritThk Total Critical Thinking Skills 95 108 15 38 37 0 5 21 4 30 40 37 36 22 30 65

47 Discipline DK general 22 disciplinary knowledge ‐ general 24 59 10 4 10 0 0 9 2 8 5 15 5 4 7 17

48 Discipline DK ethics 81 disciplinary knowledge, ethics 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 0

49 Discipline DK lit 96 disciplinary knowledge ‐ literature 1 13 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1

50 Discipline DK multi disc 28 integrating disciplines 8 13 1 3 0 0 4 3 0 0 5 0 4 4 2 6

51 Discipline DK proj area 23 disciplinary knowledge ‐ project area 41 69 8 8 17 2 6 6 8 7 20 12 13 16 18 23

52 Discipline DK theory 21 disciplinary knowledge ‐ disciplinary perspective 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1

53 Discipline DK theory 25 disciplinary knowledge ‐ theoretical foundation 33 24 1 16 15 0 1 12 1 11 9 8 13 12 10 23

54 Discipline DK theory 26 disciplinary ways of thinking 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

55 Discipline DS skills/tech 24 disciplinary skills ‐ skills/techniques/methods 8 33 0 1 4 0 3 2 0 3 3 4 3 1 3 5

56Discipline Total Disciplinary knowledge, theory, and ways of thinking 120 215 20 33 49 2 15 35 11 31 43 43 38 39 44 76

57 LitReview litrev 30 literature review ‐ analysis 6 13 2 3 1 0 0 4 0 2 0 0 4 2 1 5

58 LitReview litrev 33 literature review ‐ evaluating materials 4 9 1 1 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 3 0 1 1 3

59 LitReview litrev 32 literature review ‐ knowing how to conduct 3 6 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 3

60 LitReview litrev 35 literature review ‐ locating sources 15 20 5 6 3 0 1 5 3 4 3 8 6 1 3 12

61 LitReview litrev 36 literature review ‐ writing up 5 1 2 1 2 0 0 2 0 1 2 2 1 2 1 4

62 LitReview litrev gen 34 literature review ‐ general 16 23 4 9 2 0 1 7 0 6 3 6 5 5 8 8

63 LitReview Total Literature review skills: conducting, locating sources, writin 49 72 15 21 9 1 3 19 5 16 9 20 18 11 14 35

64 ProjMgt ProjMgt 85 project management ‐ experience with large projects 5 5 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 2 2 3 0 2 2 3

65 ProjMgt ProjMgt 43 project management ‐ goal setting 3 5 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 2 1 2 1

66 ProjMgt ProjMgt 44 project management ‐ organization 15 39 3 6 5 1 0 1 0 5 9 7 7 1 9 6

67 ProjMgt ProjMgt 94 project management ‐ pre project planning 12 7 4 5 2 0 1 6 0 3 3 4 6 2 5 7

68 ProjMgt ProjMgt 46 project management ‐ taking responsibility 5 5 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 3 1 2 2 4 1

69 ProjMgt ProjMgt 42 project management ‐ general 5 2 2 0 3 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 2 3 2 3

70 ProjMgt TimeMgt 62 time management ‐ general 63 25 17 21 19 0 6 20 6 13 24 29 22 12 30 33

71 ProjMgt TimeMgt 63 time management ‐ meeting deadlines 3 5 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 3

72

ProjMgt Total

Project management skills: planning, organization, setting goals, time management

111 93 29 37 33 3 9 32 11 24 44 45 43 23 54 57

73 Quant Quant 49 quantitative skills ‐ general 6 17 2 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 2 5 1 0 3 3

74 Quant Quant 6 computer skills ‐ graphics, GIS, other specific 3 9 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 2

75 Quant Quant 95 computer skills ‐ programming 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

76 Quant Quant 7 computer skills ‐ web page setup 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

77 Quant Quant 48 quantitative skills ‐ analysis 6 2 2 4 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 5

78 Quant Quant 99 quantitative skills ‐ graphs 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

79 Quant Quant 50 quantitative skills ‐ statistics 22 10 7 14 1 0 0 9 4 4 5 1 7 14 6 16

80 Quant Total Quantitative reasoning skills 38 44 14 22 2 0 0 18 5 6 9 10 12 16 12 26

81 Research res ‐ anal 9 research methods ‐data analysis 5 4 1 3 0 0 1 3 0 0 2 4 0 1 2 32/22/2012

Part 6, Page: 40

DEFICIENT




H M L M F

82 Research res ‐ anal 13 research methods ‐data interpretation 4 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 4 0 2 2

83 Research res ‐ conduct 58 research skills ‐ general 23 32 3 5 13 1 1 4 2 6 11 11 9 3 8 15

84 Research res ‐ conduct 51 research ‐ conducting 2 10 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 2

85 Research res ‐ conduct 104 research ‐ lab skills 5 22 3 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 4 1 2 2 2 3

86 Research res ‐ conduct 57 research methods ‐general 12 11 1 8 1 0 2 6 1 3 2 6 4 2 6 6

87 Research res ‐ conduct 59 research skills ‐ technical 3 5 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 1

88 Research res ‐ conduct 525 research skills ‐ understanding of foreign language 6 7 0 4 1 0 1 3 0 1 2 1 2 3 1 5

89 Research res ‐ design 52 research design skills ‐ general 16 10 6 9 0 1 0 6 4 5 1 6 4 6 10 6

90 Research res ‐ design 87 research design ‐ qualitative 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1

91 Research res ‐ design 53 research design skills ‐ recog methodological limitations 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0

92 Research res ‐ design 54 research methods ‐ designing research question 9 2 1 6 1 1 0 0 3 3 3 0 8 1 3 6

93 Research res ‐ presenting 79 research ‐ presenting findings 4 3 0 3 1 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 3 1 1 3

94 Research res ‐data 55 research methods ‐data analysis 2 8 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 2

95 Research res ‐data 56 research methods ‐data gathering 4 10 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 3 1 0 4

96 Research Total Research skills: design, conducting, analysis 97 125 18 47 21 3 8 28 15 23 31 31 44 22 38 59

97 Self self ‐ conduct 45 perseverance 2 10 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0

98 Self self ‐ conduct 84 self ‐discipline / work ethic 4 38 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 4 3 0 1 2 2

99 Self self ‐ conduct 93 working hard 4 13 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2

100 Self self ‐ conduct 530 independence 14 33 3 4 5 0 2 1 1 6 6 7 5 2 5 9

101 Self self ‐ confid 61 self‐confidence 9 2 3 1 5 0 0 5 1 1 2 1 6 2 1 8

102 Self self ‐ confid 97 self‐confidence ‐ intellectual abilities 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1

103 Self self ‐ personal 526 self‐personal ‐ problems with health, emotions, etc. 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0

104 Self self ‐ other 98 knowledge ‐ personal background 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

105 Self self ‐ underst 60 self reflection 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

106 Self self ‐ underst 73 self‐understanding ‐ of lack of quality in performance, writi 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 2

107 Self self ‐motivation 38 motivation ‐ in general/academic 14 26 7 2 5 0 0 6 4 3 1 6 6 2 5 9

108 Self self ‐motivation 100 motivation ‐ likes doing research 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

109 Self self ‐motivation 37 motivation for project 14 36 3 5 4 1 1 1 3 6 4 5 8 1 4 10

110Self Total


66 183 23 14 23 1 5 16 11 18 21 24 28 14 22 44

111 Grand Total 762 1102 197 267 230 12 54 239 82 185 256 290 296 176 280 482

112

113 xomit gen none 106 none ‐ no exceptional area of prep 0 60

114 xomit gen none 39 none ‐ no poor area of prep 125 0 38 38 36 5 7 51 15 31 28 14 39 72 40 85

2/22/2012

Part 6, Page: 41

Table Mentor Q3 ‐ 1: Codebook Listing and Detailed Counts for Faculty Survey Questions: Please describe areas where the student was exceptionally well prepared.Please describe areas where the student should have been better prepared for this capstone.

Counts for Prep


excep‐tional

1 General all gen all 101 general ‐ well prepared in general (or not) 2 19

2 General all T Well prepared in general 2 19

3 Collab Collab 1 collaboration skills ‐ attending meetings 1 1

4 Collab Collab 2 collaboration skills ‐ following directions 2 0

5 Collab Collab 3 collaboration skills ‐ general 9 7

6 Collab Collab 4 collaboration skills ‐ getting help from others 8 4

7 Collab Collab 102 collaboration skills ‐ making scholarly contacts 2 1

8 Collab Collab 5 collaboration skills ‐ responding to feedback 7 8

9


29 21

10 Commun com general 103 communication skills ‐ general 1 16

11 Commun oral 92 oral communication ‐ general 1 10

12 Commun oral 40 oral exam experience 1 1

13 Commun oral 41 oral presentation skills 5 14

14 Commun write gen 68 writing ‐ general 81 141

15 Commun write ‐ basic 65 writing ‐ citation style 6 1

16 Commun write ‐ basic 70 writing ‐ mechanics 14 3

17 Commun write ‐ basic 77 writing ‐ technical terminology 1 0

18 Commun write ‐ org 82 writing ‐ long work/research work 6 2

19 Commun write ‐ org 71 writing ‐ organization 9 7

20 Commun write ‐ org 78 writing ‐ thematic development 1 0

21 Commun write ‐ oth 67 writing ‐ foreign language skills 1 5

22 Commun write ‐ oth 69 writing ‐ integrating sources 2 1

23 Commun write ‐ stylistic 64 writing ‐ being concise 1 0

24 Commun write ‐ stylistic 66 writing ‐ clarity 8 11

25 Commun write ‐ stylistic 90 writing ‐ persuasive 0 2

26 Commun write ‐ stylistic 74 writing ‐ reflective 1 1

27 Commun write ‐ stylistic 75 writing ‐ scholarly manner 4 1

28 Commun write ‐ stylistic 76 writing ‐ style 5 4

29 Commun write ‐ stylistic 86 writing ‐ style of discipline 7 2

30Commun Total Communication skills ‐ general, written, oral 155 222

31 CritThk CT gen 12 CT ‐ general 22 29

32 CritThk CT ‐ synthesis 89 CT ‐ originality/creativity 2 12

33 CritThk CT ‐ synthesis 15 CT ‐ problem solving 1 3

34 CritThk CT ‐ synthesis 83 CT ‐ synthesis 4 11

35 CritThk CT anal 88 CT ‐ analysis of primary material 1 2

36 CritThk CT anal 8 CT ‐ analysis skills 11 12

37 CritThk CT anal 105 CT ‐ reading closely 7 16

38 CritThk CT anal 17 CT‐ analysis of secondary material 5 0

39 CritThk CT anal 18 CT ‐analysis, drawing conclusions 6 5

EXCEPTIONAL EXCEPTIONAL

BY MAJOR DIVISION BY SCHOOL GPA Gender

NS SS HU PR Self R T W YH M L M F

6 7 5 1 0 3 5 7 4 1 5 13 3 16

6 7 5 1 0 3 5 7 4 1 5 13 3 16

0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 2 2 3 1 6

1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 3 1 0 4

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1

1 1 4 0 2 1 0 4 3 2 5 1 4 4

3 5 7 2 4 4 3 7 7 5 11 5 5 16

9 3 3 0 1 2 1 2 11 1 5 10 7 9

2 2 5 0 1 2 1 0 7 3 2 5 4 6

0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1

5 2 5 2 0 3 6 1 4 4 9 1 7 7

44 47 43 0 7 50 16 29 46 16 45 80 48 93

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1

0 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 3

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 2

2 1 4 0 0 1 3 2 1 1 2 4 2 5

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 4 0 1 4 0 0 1 0 2 3 0 5

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 2 8 0 1 4 3 3 1 3 5 3 2 9

2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 2

1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0

1 1 2 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 3 1 3

2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 2

69 63 77 2 11 72 35 42 73 29 75 118 73 149

11 4 10 0 3 9 5 7 8 1 10 18 15 14

4 1 6 0 1 4 1 3 4 1 3 8 6 6

2 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 1

4 1 6 0 0 5 2 3 1 1 5 5 3 8

1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 1

4 6 1 0 1 5 1 0 6 0 2 10 6 6

8 1 6 0 1 5 2 2 7 0 6 10 2 14

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 2 3 0 0 1 0 1 3 3 0 2 4 1

2/22/2012

Part 6, Page: 42

Counts for Prep


excep‐tional

40 CritThk CT argument 10 CT ‐ applying information 3 4

41 CritThk CT argument 11 CT ‐ argumentation 14 2

42 CritThk CT argument 16 CT ‐ thinking approp to discipline 3 1

43 CritThk CT argument 19 CT‐ applying principles/theory 11 8

44 CritThk CT ‐mult views 80 CT ‐ addressing opposing views/information 2 1

45 CritThk CT ‐mult views 14 CT ‐ open mindedness 3 2

46 CritThk Total Critical Thinking Skills 95 108

47 Discipline DK general 22 disciplinary knowledge ‐ general 24 59

48 Discipline DK ethics 81 disciplinary knowledge, ethics 2 0

49 Discipline DK lit 96 disciplinary knowledge ‐ literature 1 13

50 Discipline DK multi disc 28 integrating disciplines 8 13

51 Discipline DK proj area 23 disciplinary knowledge ‐ project area 41 69

52 Discipline DK theory 21 disciplinary knowledge ‐ disciplinary perspective 2 2

53 Discipline DK theory 25 disciplinary knowledge ‐ theoretical foundation 33 24

54 Discipline DK theory 26 disciplinary ways of thinking 1 2

55 Discipline DS skills/tech 24 disciplinary skills ‐ skills/techniques/methods 8 33

56Discipline Total Disciplinary knowledge, theory, and ways of thinking 120 215

57 LitReview litrev 30 literature review ‐ analysis 6 13

58 LitReview litrev 33 literature review ‐ evaluating materials 4 9

59 LitReview litrev 32 literature review ‐ knowing how to conduct 3 6

60 LitReview litrev 35 literature review ‐ locating sources 15 20

61 LitReview litrev 36 literature review ‐ writing up 5 1

62 LitReview litrev gen 34 literature review ‐ general 16 23

63 LitReview Total Literature review skills: conducting, locating sources, writin 49 72

64 ProjMgt ProjMgt 85 project management ‐ experience with large projects 5 5

65 ProjMgt ProjMgt 43 project management ‐ goal setting 3 5

66 ProjMgt ProjMgt 44 project management ‐ organization 15 39

67 ProjMgt ProjMgt 94 project management ‐ pre project planning 12 7

68 ProjMgt ProjMgt 46 project management ‐ taking responsibility 5 5

69 ProjMgt ProjMgt 42 project management ‐ general 5 2

70 ProjMgt TimeMgt 62 time management ‐ general 63 25

71 ProjMgt TimeMgt 63 time management ‐ meeting deadlines 3 5

72

ProjMgt Total


111 93

73 Quant Quant 49 quantitative skills ‐ general 6 17

74 Quant Quant 6 computer skills ‐ graphics, GIS, other specific 3 9

75 Quant Quant 95 computer skills ‐ programming 0 5

76 Quant Quant 7 computer skills ‐ web page setup 1 0

77 Quant Quant 48 quantitative skills ‐ analysis 6 2

78 Quant Quant 99 quantitative skills ‐ graphs 0 1

79 Quant Quant 50 quantitative skills ‐ statistics 22 10

80 Quant Total Quantitative reasoning skills 38 44

81 Research res ‐ anal 9 research methods ‐data analysis 5 4




0 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 0 3 1 0 4

0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 2 0

0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1

0 6 2 0 0 6 0 2 0 0 1 7 4 4

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0

0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 2

34 26 39 1 7 39 14 22 33 9 34 65 46 62

25 10 18 2 4 17 5 19 18 10 27 22 20 39

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 7 3 0 2 9 0 1 3 3 5 5 8 5

5 3 2 0 3 6 0 0 7 1 4 8 6 7

12 26 24 3 4 32 7 6 24 13 32 24 33 36

1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 2

4 15 3 0 2 18 1 2 3 6 6 12 5 19

0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 2

4 5 20 1 3 10 8 7 8 9 8 16 15 18

51 69 70 6 18 94 21 36 64 42 85 88 87 128

5 5 2 0 1 4 3 2 4 0 5 8 4 9

4 3 2 0 0 3 2 1 3 0 5 4 3 6

0 3 3 0 0 2 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 5

7 6 6 1 0 7 4 4 5 3 8 9 5 15

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1

7 9 5 0 2 5 4 10 4 1 9 13 2 21

23 27 18 1 3 21 14 19 18 5 30 37 15 57

1 3 1 0 0 4 1 0 0 2 1 2 1 4

1 1 2 0 1 1 0 2 2 0 1 4 0 5

13 12 12 1 1 15 6 8 10 4 13 22 7 32

1 3 3 0 0 4 1 2 0 0 3 4 0 7

1 1 3 0 0 3 0 1 1 1 2 2 1 4

0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1

8 6 9 0 2 6 4 9 6 2 10 13 4 21

1 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 0 5 0 1 4

26 27 34 1 5 35 12 26 20 9 37 47 15 78

11 4 2 0 0 9 0 3 5 3 4 10 12 5

1 4 3 0 1 2 2 0 5 3 3 3 2 7

5 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 3 0 2 5 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 2

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0

2 8 0 0 0 1 0 7 2 0 6 4 2 8

21 16 6 0 1 15 3 13 13 10 13 21 22 22

0 2 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 0 3 2 22/22/2012

Part 6, Page: 43

Counts for Prep


excep‐tional

82 Research res ‐ anal 13 research methods ‐data interpretation 4 0

83 Research res ‐ conduct 58 research skills ‐ general 23 32

84 Research res ‐ conduct 51 research ‐ conducting 2 10

85 Research res ‐ conduct 104 research ‐ lab skills 5 22

86 Research res ‐ conduct 57 research methods ‐general 12 11

87 Research res ‐ conduct 59 research skills ‐ technical 3 5

88 Research res ‐ conduct 525 research skills ‐ understanding of foreign language 6 7

89 Research res ‐ design 52 research design skills ‐ general 16 10

90 Research res ‐ design 87 research design ‐ qualitative 1 1

91 Research res ‐ design 53 research design skills ‐ recog methodological limitations 1 0

92 Research res ‐ design 54 research methods ‐ designing research question 9 2

93 Research res ‐ presenting 79 research ‐ presenting findings 4 3

94 Research res ‐data 55 research methods ‐data analysis 2 8

95 Research res ‐data 56 research methods ‐data gathering 4 10

96 Research Total Research skills: design, conducting, analysis 97 125

97 Self self ‐ conduct 45 perseverance 2 10

98 Self self ‐ conduct 84 self ‐discipline / work ethic 4 38

99 Self self ‐ conduct 93 working hard 4 13

100 Self self ‐ conduct 530 independence 14 33

101 Self self ‐ confid 61 self‐confidence 9 2

102 Self self ‐ confid 97 self‐confidence ‐ intellectual abilities 1 2

103 Self self ‐ personal 526 self‐personal ‐ problems with health, emotions, etc. 1 0

104 Self self ‐ other 98 knowledge ‐ personal background 0 18

105 Self self ‐ underst 60 self reflection 1 3

106 Self self ‐ underst 73 self‐understanding ‐ of lack of quality in performance, writi 2 1

107 Self self ‐motivation 38 motivation ‐ in general/academic 14 26

108 Self self ‐motivation 100 motivation ‐ likes doing research 0 1

109 Self self ‐motivation 37 motivation for project 14 36

110Self Total


66 183

111 Grand Total 762 1102

112

113 xomit gen none 106 none ‐ no exceptional area of prep 0 60

114 xomit gen none 39 none ‐ no poor area of prep 125 0




0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 6 15 0 1 16 3 8 5 2 11 19 10 22

2 3 3 0 2 1 0 4 5 1 4 5 0 10

21 0 0 0 1 10 0 1 11 4 11 7 9 13

3 8 0 0 0 5 1 5 0 2 6 3 6 5

1 2 1 0 1 4 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 3

0 3 3 0 1 2 2 1 2 0 1 6 5 2

2 7 1 0 0 6 1 3 0 1 3 6 3 7

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1

2 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 1 2

2 4 1 1 0 2 3 1 2 2 2 4 3 5

3 5 1 0 1 4 2 2 2 3 3 4 2 8

46 43 26 2 8 53 14 27 31 19 45 61 44 81

6 1 2 0 1 6 1 0 3 3 2 5 3 7

13 12 10 1 2 11 6 8 13 6 14 18 10 28

7 4 2 0 0 3 3 4 3 1 5 7 4 9

18 8 6 0 1 16 0 7 10 2 10 21 11 22

0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0

2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 8 5 0 3 3 1 7 7 3 5 10 5 13

0 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 3

0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1

3 11 7 3 2 11 2 8 5 6 9 11 6 20

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0

6 10 14 0 6 11 3 7 15 17 10 9 17 19

58 57 49 4 15 66 16 43 58 43 58 82 61 122

337 340 331 20 72 402 137 242 321 172 393 537 371 731

14 27 14 0 5 15 4 18 23 29 24 7 18 42

2/22/2012

Part 6, Page: 44

Table Mentor Q3 ‐ 2: Summary Counts for Faculty Survey Questions: Please describe areas where the student was exceptionally well prepared.Please describe areas where the student should have been better prepared for this capstone.

DEFICIENT


Line Group 1 Group 2 Textdefi‐ cient


H M L M F

2 General all T Well prepared in general 2 19 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 1

9


29 21 6 13 4 1 4 12 3 6 8 13 12 4 13 16

30Commun Total Communication skills ‐ general, written, oral 155 222 57 40 52 1 5 58 17 31 49 67 63 25 52 103

46 CritThk Total Critical Thinking Skills 95 108 15 38 37 0 5 21 4 30 40 37 36 22 30 65

56Discipline Total Disciplinary knowledge, theory, and ways of thinking 120 215 20 33 49 2 15 35 11 31 43 43 38 39 44 76

63 LitReview TotalLiterature review skills: conducting, locating sources, writing up 49 72 15 21 9 1 3 19 5 16 9 20 18 11 14 35

72

ProjMgt Total


111 93 29 37 33 3 9 32 11 24 44 45 43 23 54 57

80 Quant Total Quantitative reasoning skills 38 44 14 22 2 0 0 18 5 6 9 10 12 16 12 26

96 Research Total Research skills: design, conducting, analysis 97 125 18 47 21 3 8 28 15 23 31 31 44 22 38 59

110Self Total


66 183 23 14 23 1 5 16 11 18 21 24 28 14 22 44

111 Grand Total 762 1102 197 267 230 12 54 239 82 185 256 290 296 176 280 482

2/22/2012

Part 6, Page: 45

Table Mentor Q3 ‐ 2: Summary Counts for Faculty Survey Questions: Please describe areas where the student was exceptionally well prepared.Please describe areas where the student should have been better prepared for this cap

Counts for Prep

Line Group 1 Group 2 Textdefi‐ cient

excep‐tional

2 General all T Well prepared in general 2 19

9


29 21

30Commun Total Communication skills ‐ general, written, oral 155 222

46 CritThk Total Critical Thinking Skills 95 108

56Discipline Total Disciplinary knowledge, theory, and ways of thinking 120 215

63 LitReview TotalLiterature review skills: conducting, locating sources, writing up 49 72

72

ProjMgt Total


111 93

80 Quant Total Quantitative reasoning skills 38 44

96 Research Total Research skills: design, conducting, analysis 97 125

110Self Total


66 183

111 Grand Total 762 1102




6 7 5 1 0 3 5 7 4 1 5 13 3 16

3 5 7 2 4 4 3 7 7 5 11 5 5 16

69 63 77 2 11 72 35 42 73 29 75 118 73 149

34 26 39 1 7 39 14 22 33 9 34 65 46 62

51 69 70 6 18 94 21 36 64 42 85 88 87 128

23 27 18 1 3 21 14 19 18 5 30 37 15 57

26 27 34 1 5 35 12 26 20 9 37 47 15 78

21 16 6 0 1 15 3 13 13 10 13 21 22 22

46 43 26 2 8 53 14 27 31 19 45 61 44 81

58 57 49 4 15 66 16 43 58 43 58 82 61 122

337 340 331 20 72 402 137 242 321 172 393 537 371 731

2/22/2012

Part 6, Page: 46

Table Mentor Q3 ‐ 3: Codebook Listing and Summary Counts for Faculty Survey Questions: Please describe areas where the student was exceptionally well prepared.Please describe areas where the student should have been better prepared for this capstone.

DEFICIENT


Line Group 1 Textdefi‐ cient

excep‐tional

Def N

NS SS HU PR Self R T W Y H M L M F

2 General all Total Well prepared in general 0.3% 1.7% 2 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.4% 0.2%

9


3.8% 1.9% 29 3.0% 4.9% 1.7% 8.3% 7.4% 5.0% 3.7% 3.2% 3.1% 4.5% 4.1% 2.3% 4.6% 3.3%

30Commun Total Communication skills ‐ general, written, oral 20.3% 20.1% 155 28.9% 15.0% 22.6% 8.3% 9.3% 24.3% 20.7% 16.8% 19.1% 23.1% 21.3% 14.2% 18.6% 21.4%

46 CritThk Total Critical Thinking Skills 12.5% 9.8% 95 7.6% 14.2% 16.1% 0.0% 9.3% 8.8% 4.9% 16.2% 15.6% 12.8% 12.2% 12.5% 10.7% 13.5%

56Discipline Total

Disciplinary knowledge, theory, and ways of thinking

15.7% 19.5% 120 10.2% 12.4% 21.3% 16.7% 27.8% 14.6% 13.4% 16.8% 16.8% 14.8% 12.8% 22.2% 15.7% 15.8%

63LitReview Total

Literature review skills: conducting, locating sources, writing up

6.4% 6.5% 49 7.6% 7.9% 3.9% 8.3% 5.6% 7.9% 6.1% 8.6% 3.5% 6.9% 6.1% 6.3% 5.0% 7.3%

72ProjMgt Total


14.6% 8.4% 111 14.7% 13.9% 14.3% 25.0% 16.7% 13.4% 13.4% 13.0% 17.2% 15.5% 14.5% 13.1% 19.3% 11.8%

80 Quant Total Quantitative reasoning skills 5.0% 4.0% 38 7.1% 8.2% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 7.5% 6.1% 3.2% 3.5% 3.4% 4.1% 9.1% 4.3% 5.4%

96 Research Total Research skills: design, conducting, analysis 12.7% 11.3% 97 9.1% 17.6% 9.1% 25.0% 14.8% 11.7% 18.3% 12.4% 12.1% 10.7% 14.9% 12.5% 13.6% 12.2%

110

Self TotalPersonal skills and attributes: work ethic, motivation, time management, independence

8.7% 16.6% 66 11.7% 5.2% 10.0% 8.3% 9.3% 6.7% 13.4% 9.7% 8.2% 8.3% 9.5% 8.0% 7.9% 9.1%

111 Grand Total 100.0% 100.0% 762 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total N: 762 1,102 197 267 230 12 54 239 82 185 256 290 296 176 280 482

Excel conditional highlighting is used to show variation within individual rows, within the deficient and exceptional areas, separately.

Rows or columns with N under 25 have been excluded from the highlighting.

2/22/2012

Part 6, Page: 47

Table Mentor Q3 ‐ 3: Codebook Listing and Summary Counts for Faculty SPlease describe areas where the student was exceptionally well preparedPlease describe areas where the student should have been better prepar

Counts for Prep

Line Group 1 Textdefi‐ cient

excep‐tional

2 General all Total Well prepared in general 0.3% 1.7%

9


3.8% 1.9%

30Commun Total Communication skills ‐ general, written, oral 20.3% 20.1%

46 CritThk Total Critical Thinking Skills 12.5% 9.8%

56Discipline Total

Disciplinary knowledge, theory, and ways of thinking

15.7% 19.5%

63LitReview Total

Literature review skills: conducting, locating sources, writing up

6.4% 6.5%

72ProjMgt Total


14.6% 8.4%

80 Quant Total Quantitative reasoning skills 5.0% 4.0%

96 Research Total Research skills: design, conducting, analysis 12.7% 11.3%

110

Self TotalPersonal skills and attributes: work ethic, motivation, time management, independence

8.7% 16.6%

111 Grand Total 100.0% 100.0%

Total N: 762 1,102

Excel conditional highlighting is used to show variation within individual rows, within the defici

Rows or columns with N under 25 have been excluded from the highlighting.

EXCEPTIONAL


Exc N

NS SS HU PR Self R T W Y H M L M F

19 1.8% 2.1% 1.5% 5.0% 0.0% 0.7% 3.6% 2.9% 1.2% 0.6% 1.3% 2.4% 0.8% 2.2%

8 0.9% 1.5% 2.1% 10.0% 5.6% 1.0% 2.2% 2.9% 2.2% 2.9% 2.8% 0.9% 1.3% 2.2%

2 20.5% 18.5% 23.3% 10.0% 15.3% 17.9% 25.5% 17.4% 22.7% 16.9% 19.1% 22.0% 19.7% 20.4%

2 10.1% 7.6% 11.8% 5.0% 9.7% 9.7% 10.2% 9.1% 10.3% 5.2% 8.7% 12.1% 12.4% 8.5%

33 15.1% 20.3% 21.1% 30.0% 25.0% 23.4% 15.3% 14.9% 19.9% 24.4% 21.6% 16.4% 23.5% 17.5%

23 6.8% 7.9% 5.4% 5.0% 4.2% 5.2% 10.2% 7.9% 5.6% 2.9% 7.6% 6.9% 4.0% 7.8%

5 7.7% 7.9% 10.3% 5.0% 6.9% 8.7% 8.8% 10.7% 6.2% 5.2% 9.4% 8.8% 4.0% 10.7%

10 6.2% 4.7% 1.8% 0.0% 1.4% 3.7% 2.2% 5.4% 4.0% 5.8% 3.3% 3.9% 5.9% 3.0%

10 13.6% 12.6% 7.9% 10.0% 11.1% 13.2% 10.2% 11.2% 9.7% 11.0% 11.5% 11.4% 11.9% 11.1%

36 17.2% 16.8% 14.8% 20.0% 20.8% 16.4% 11.7% 17.8% 18.1% 25.0% 14.8% 15.3% 16.4% 16.7%

183 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

337 340 331 20 72 402 137 242 321 172 393 537 371 731

2/22/2012

Part 6, Page: 48

PART 7: ALUMNI SURVEY REPORT

SECTION 1: General Analysis of Results

SECTION 2: Analysis of Responses to the open‐ended question: “What about your capstone experience (good or bad) had the most impact on you?”

APPENDICES

Appendix A

• Table A1 – Composite Results • Table A1 – Section F Results by College

Appendix B – Capstone Contribution to Development Means

• Table B1 – By College • Table B2 – By Gender • Table B3 – By Cohort • Table B4 – By College GPA • Table B5 – By Primary Major of Capstone

Appendix C – Capstone Experiences Questions Means

• Table C1 – By College • Table C2 – By Gender • Table C3 – By Cohort • Table C4 – By College GPA • Table C5 – By Primary Major of Capstone

Appendix D – General Linear Models for:

• Overall Capstone Experience • Capstone Contribution to Development • Capstone Experience Rating Average • Developed more academically from capstone than from a regular course • Capstone more valuable than an additional course in the major

Appendix E – Correlations of Key Capstone Evaluation Questions with Other Relevant Questions

Appendix F – Comparison of Result Means by Academic Division

Appendix G – Comments Categorized with Frequencies

Appendix H – Blank Alumni Survey Form (HEDS Main Survey and Capstone Supplemental Questions)

Part 7, Page: 1

Section 1: Alumni Survey Overview and General Analysis of Results

Overview

The four private liberal arts colleges in the Teagle Capstone study (Allegheny College, Augustana College, The College of Wooster, and Washington College, referred to here as the “Teagle Colleges”) participated in the 2009‐10 Higher Education Data Sharing (HEDS) Alumni Survey to investigate alumni reports of the impact of the senior capstone experience on their post‐graduate personal and professional lives, and their retrospective thoughts on the nature and value of the capstone experience. Supplemental questions focusing on capstone experiences were added to the standard HEDS Alumni Survey for this purpose. A copy of the main survey and supplemental questions is included in the appendix. The graduating class cohorts of 2007, 2004 and 1999 were surveyed to represent different post‐graduate life/career stages ‐ two, five and ten years out, respectively.

In addition to analyzing the composite overall results for the Teagle Colleges, this report looks at the results for each or the four colleges separately as part of an attempt to discover best practices and cost/benefit issues for structuring capstone programs. Also of note is that while many colleges have senior capstone programs in selected areas, most usually in the sciences, or programs that are restricted to high ability students, the Teagle Colleges have, or in one case, are developing, a universal senior capstone requirement. The research questions for our study include whether the impact of the capstone experiences vary by the student’s academic discipline, academic ability, academic major, or gender (see Tables 4‐6).

Because of the potential sensitivity of presenting data in the fine detail provided below, the Teagle Colleges are identified by aliases: Red, Tan, White, and Yellow. Three of the institutions had a universal capstone requirement in place for the three graduating classes, while Tan College is only currently implementing a universal senior capstone program and did not have it in place for these classes. For uniformity, alums from Tan College were asked to respond to the capstone experience questions only if they completed a senior capstone experience. Nonetheless, the results for Tan are not strictly comparable.

Characteristics of Respondents

The number of respondents from each college and cohort is given below:

Cohort Red Tan White Yellow Total 1999 60 54 20 155 289 2004 71 53 40 145 309 2007 118 69 0 117 304

Total 249 176 60 417 902 % of Total 27.6% 19.5% 6.7% 46.2% 100.0%

The sampling does present some concerns in interpreting the results. Due to a miscommunication, White did not survey the 2007 cohort. Also, in the composite results below, which are unweighted by institution, White will be underrepresented and Yellow overrepresented. Finally, sample bias is a potential issue since, as is typical, only a minority of alumni responded to the surveys. The percentage of the graduating classes that responded was approximately 10% for Tan, 23% for Red, 16% for White, and 35% for Yellow. Females were overrepresented in the respondents, with 63% being female, 37% male, although part of this is because we estimate about 55%‐58% of our graduates are female.

Part 7, Page: 2

Composite Results

Table A1 in Appendix A is a tabular report of the basic descriptive statistics for the combined responses from the Teagle Colleges, and displays a summary of response percentages and means for the entire survey. In addition, the separate values by school are given for Section F, the capstone specific supplemental questions. Section F is the focus for the remarks below:

• Overall capstone experience. Alums rated the overall capstone experience highly. 72% of alums rated the experience “very good” or “exceptionally good”; 90% rated it “good” or better. The mean ratings were not statistically significant by academic major (aggregated by division into natural sciences ‐NS, social sciences ‐ SS, humanities ‐HUM). A general linear model analysis with school, gender, and college GPA included, showed significant effects for school and college GPA. Red showed the highest means overall and for each academic division (Appendix F). Further details by subgroup are discussed below.

• Contribution to skill development. Alums also rated the contribution of their senior project to their development highly in many critical thinking and skill areas, as shown in the following table, which is sorted by the percent responding “quite a bit” or “very much”. The top seven items, those over 70%, are developmental outcomes that one might expect from almost every capstone. The last two items, “ability to make an oral presentation” and “integrating ideas from multiple disciplines” may be lower because not all capstones include an oral presentation or are interdisciplinary.

Capstone Contribution to development ‐ % quite a bit or very much Learning effectively on my own 81.1%

Ability to think critically and analytically 79.9%

Ability to write effectively (NS+) 78.4%Skill in the interpreting of data, evidence, texts, and/or works (NS +, SS+)

78.4%

Managing a large project 76.1%

Having confidence in my own abilities 73.1%

Ability to think creatively (HUM+) 70.7%

Ability to make an effective oral presentation (NS+) 61.3%Integrating ideas from multiple disciplines (SS+, HUM+)

58.0%

An analysis of means shows some significant differences by academic divisions as noted above for the higher mean divisions, some of which may reflect the relative emphasis on a skill within the division or in preparation. For instance, is development of writing and oral presentation skill during the capstone rated higher among NS alumni because the capstone emphasizes these skills more than in a typical science course? (c.f. Appendix F)

The contribution to development means also varied by college GPA level, with the peak rating generally occurring at the A‐ level (see table 5 below).

• Growth Contributions. Alumni also rated the capstone experience highly as a contributor to intellectual growth, self‐understanding, and personal growth, as well as preparation for a job or

Part 7, Page: 3

graduate school. Lower rated was the impact of the capstone on clarifying job or graduate school objectives, possibly because for the majority of alumni, those objectives were determined prior to the capstone.

Capstone experience ‐ % agree or strongly agree Positive influence on intellectual growth/interest in ideas 82.6% Led to better understanding of skills, abilities, interests 75.9% Positive influence on personal growth, attitudes, values 69.6% Feel better prepared for job or grad school than peers 67.7% More intellectually challenging than my reg coursework 67.6% Developed more academically than from a reg course 55.9% Helped me clarify my career of graduate school objectives 37.0%

• Comparison to regular courses. When comparing the capstone experience to regular courses, a slight majority seem to favor the capstone. 56% of alums felt they developed more academically from their capstone than they did from “a regular course”. In the context of this question, “a regular course” would likely be interpreted by the respondent as any standard lecture type course as contrasted to their capstone research or individual project experience. Similarly, when comparing the capstone to an additional course in the major, 51% felt the capstone was more valuable than an additional course in the major; 36% were neutral; 13% thought an additional course in the major would be more valuable.

In summary, the results seem largely supportive of the value of a senior capstone experience as a significant contributor to intellectual and personal growth and self‐understanding. However, only a slight majority indicated they felt they developed more academically from their capstone than from a regular course or an additional course in their major.

Overall Results by Institution, Primary Major, Gender, and Academic GPA Level

A factor analysis of the nine “contribution to development” questions and six “capstone experience” questions indicated that each set of questions was based on a single latent factor and that the averages of the items could be use as reliable scales.1 Accordingly, the “capstone contribution to development average” and the capstone experiences rating average” are used below as summary scales in the tables below.

The tables below give breakdowns of the means for the overall rating items in Section F, including the two scales indicated above. If ANOVA indicated the differences in the means were statistically significant p<.05 for an item, the highest mean for that item has been bolded.

The scales for the items are as follows:

• Overall capstone experience: 7=exceptionally good, 6=very good, 5= good, 4=neutral, 3=poor, 2=very poor, 1= exceptionally poor

1 Appendices B and C show the items included in the “contribution to development” and “capstone experience” questions, respectively, and their detailed means.

Part 7, Page: 4

• Capstone contribution questions: 5=very much, 4=quite a bit, 3=somewhat, 2=very little, 1=not at all

• Capstone experiences questions: 5=strongly agree, 4=agree, 3=neutral, 2=disagree, 1=strongly disagree

• Compared value questions: 3=capstone is rated more valuable, 2=capstone as valuable, 1=capstone less valuable

Table 2: Overall Ratings by Cohort

Cohort

Overall capstone experience

Capstone contribution

to development

average

Capstone experiences

rating average

Compared value:

Additional courses in major

Compared value:

Additional courses outside of major

Compared value:

Participating in co‐

curricular activities N

1999 5.78 3.93 3.69 2.39 2.51 2.44 268 2004 5.87 4.05 3.86 2.35 2.53 2.41 287 2007 5.97 4.12 3.91 2.40 2.57 2.48 286

Total 5.88 4.04 3.82 2.38 2.54 2.44 841

Looking at the overall means for the three cohorts, on average, alums:

• rate the capstone experience as “very good” (about 6 as an average), • feel the capstone contributed “quite a bit” to their development, when assessed over a variety

of academic areas, and, • generally consider the capstone as more valuable than the alternative options of an additional

course either in or outside the major, or participating in additional co‐curricular experiences.

When considered by cohort, the overall pattern in Table 2 appears to be that the capstone experience and development ratings are decreasing with the length of time from graduation. In comparing this data with that from questions 1 and 6 from the main survey, where alums rate other college experiences, it appears that the ratings for the impact of academic experiences are generally lower for the 1999 cohort than for the 2007 cohort, but there are enough exceptions to make one hesitate to conclude that this is, for example, some sort of fading memory phenomenon or some other phenomenon we can readily explain. Of course, the capstone programs or related curricular programs may have simply improved over time.

Table 3: Overall Ratings by School

school



to development

average


rating average

Compared value:


Compared value:


Compared value:



Red 6.16 4.20 4.09 2.57 2.59 2.54 242 Tan 5.63 3.81 3.62 2.20 2.48 2.41 126 White 5.68 3.90 3.67 2.28 2.46 2.28 59 Yellow 5.81 4.03 3.75 2.34 2.54 2.42 414

Total 5.88 4.04 3.82 2.38 2.54 2.44 841

Part 7, Page: 5

The ratings by school in Table 3 are statistically significant for five of the six items, and strongly suggest that the capstone program at Red is having a stronger impact. If this is corroborated by other project data, this could be a useful result in that it opens an area of investigation that may lead to a better understanding of how various practices may impact capstone outcomes. Yellow’s means also show apparent strength relative to Tan or White.

Table 4: Overall Ratings by Gender

Sex



to development

average


rating average

Compared value:


Compared value:


Compared value:



Male 5.84 3.95 3.75 2.40 2.54 2.41 315 Female 5.90 4.09 3.87 2.37 2.54 2.46 521

Total 5.88 4.04 3.83 2.38 2.54 2.44 836

Table 4 shows statistically significant higher means for female students on the capstone experiences rating average and contribution to development scales. Looking more closely at the experience questions in Appendix C, females had statistically significant higher means for clarifying their graduate school objectives, feeling better prepared for graduate school, the capstone having a positive influence on their intellectual growth, and the capstone being a positive influence on their personal growth.

Table 5: Overall Ratings by Self‐Reported Undergraduate GPA

Overall grade received as undergrad



to development

average


rating average

Compared value:


Compared value:


Compared value:



A 6.04 4.11 3.88 2.46 2.60 2.58 235 A‐ 6.06 4.17 3.96 2.47 2.62 2.45 180 B+ 5.94 4.12 3.93 2.43 2.57 2.51 168 B 5.73 3.90 3.64 2.30 2.50 2.35 157 B‐/C+ or below

5.28 3.67 3.50 2.06 2.25 2.22 98

Total 5.88 4.04 3.82 2.38 2.54 2.44 838

Table 5 shows there are statistically significant differences in ratings of the capstone experience based on overall GPA, with students with higher GPAs generally rating the capstone higher. The results for A/A/B+ students are fairly clustered and aggregating shows groups might be reasonable, but significant drops occur for each of the steps to B and to “B‐/C+ and below”.

Part 7, Page: 6

Table 6: Overall Ratings by Primary Major of Capstone Project

Primary Major



to development

average


rating average

Compared value:


Compared value:


Compared value:



Teacher Education 5.68 4.28 3.97 2.64 2.82 2.81 22 Languages/Lit/Comm 5.77 4.00 3.82 2.37 2.44 2.30 125 Humanities 6.38 4.11 4.08 2.52 2.67 2.48 21 Natural Sciences 5.86 4.02 3.77 2.37 2.57 2.49 249 Social Sciences 5.90 4.06 3.84 2.39 2.54 2.44 354 Visual and Performing Arts

6.08 4.05 3.82 2.27 2.30 2.49 37

Business 5.79 3.85 3.99 2.50 2.61 2.44 19

Total 5.88 4.04 3.83 2.39 2.54 2.45 827

Table 6 indicates the ratings by the primary major relevant to the capstone project, as reported by the alumni. These have been clustered using the College Instructional Program (CIP) 2000 classifications. Although the means appear to differ notably in some cases, ANOVA showed the differences were not statistically significant for five of the six variables, and if “Teacher Education” as a major was removed, none of the variables would have statistically significant differences. (The “Teacher Education” results are based almost entirely on alums from Tan where the capstone experience is student teaching.) Since many colleges promote undergraduate research most extensively in the sciences, this table gives an encouraging result in that it appears that capstone experiences can be successfully provided for students in any liberal arts area.

The breakdown of the items averaged in Table 6, as given in Appendix B, shows teacher education majors have a particularly high mean for the capstone contribution to “ability to make an effective oral presentation”, “ability to think creatively” and “integrating ideas from multiple disciplines” and “better understanding of skills, abilities, interests”. Social science majors had a particularly high mean for “skill in interpreting data, evidence, text or works”.

To simplify the analysis by major while eliminating majors with small Ns, the capstone majors have been consolidated in the table below into the natural sciences, social sciences and humanities/arts. Business was included with the social sciences and teacher education majors were excluded. The table shows that the ratings are remarkably similar for the three groups (and they were not statistically significant).

Table 7: Overall Ratings by Division of the Capstone Project

Primary Major Groups



to development

average


rating average

Compared value:


Compared value:


Compared value:



lang/lit/comm/arts/humanities 5.90 4.02 3.85 3.58 2.37 2.44 186

nat sci/math/cs 5.86 4.02 3.77 3.49 2.37 2.57 250 soc sci/business 5.90 4.05 3.85 3.56 2.39 2.55 374

Total 5.89 4.03 3.82 3.54 2.38 2.53 810

Part 7, Page: 7

General Linear Modeling – Combining School, Cohort, Gender, Major and GPA

Tables 2 to 7 above give breakdowns of response means shown individually by school, gender, capstone major, and college GPA level. Additional exploration of potential interactions of these variables when taken together was done by incorporating all these variables using General Linear Modeling (GLM) in SPSS. The resulting models for predicting the overall capstone experience, capstone contribution to development average, and capstone experiences average indicated that the dominant effects were from school, college GPA, and, in some cases an interaction effect from school and college GPA. Also:

• Gender and graduation cohort did not have a significant effect when combined with school and college

• The model incorporating the major division of the capstone with the school and college GPA resulting was too complicated to be intelligible, with significant interactions of school*major and school*major*college GPA. The dominant factor, however, appeared to be school. Based on this majors were removed as a variable in the GLMs and the school/major interaction explored separately ‐ see Appendix F.

The predictive models that emerged from the GLM analysis for key rating items and scales are shown in Appendix D. The models each predict a value for a key rating indicator based on school and college GPA, the two dominant effects. An interaction effect between school and college GPA, which was statistically significant for all the models shown, will manifest itself as differences in the slopes of the lines for the schools.

Implications for our Research Question: What is the impact of the capstone experience on outcomes leading to lifelong learning? What is the perceived impact one, five and five‐plus years after graduation? Alumni responses indicate the capstone experience contributes to lifelong learning in at least three ways: 1) Having a positive learning experience during the capstone itself, thereby contributing to an interest or inclination to engage later in similar challenging learning activities; 2) Developing the academic and project management skills required for independent learning; and 3) Developing confidence in one’s ability to succeed and be effective at learning tasks. These three areas are essential for significant lifelong learning.

As to having a positive learning experience, we have noted that alumni at all levels surveyed (one, five, and ten years out) rated their overall capstone experience highly: 90% rated it “good”, “very good”, or “exceptionally good”. Additionally, 62% of alumni indicated they were “very satisfied” with “independent study/research” services.

We have also noted above that alumni also felt the capstone contributed significantly to their development of academic skills and self‐confidence, perhaps most notably for life‐long learning that 81% indicated the capstone contributed quite a bit or very much to “learning effectively on my own”, the top percentage among the contribution to development items.

There is also evidence that capstone experiences contribute to career, advanced degree, or lifestyle choices that require higher levels of cognitive challenge.

• 74% of alumni rated their independent study experience as a “moderate” or “extensive” contributor to their “personal or professional life after graduation”.

Part 7, Page: 8

• With regard to advanced degrees, the alumni survey asks alumni to report degrees received, working on, or hoped for. Alumni showed strong interest in advanced degrees: 56% of alumni reported they had received or were working on a masters degree, 19% a professional degree (law, medicine, other), 11% a doctoral degree. 21% hoped to eventually earn a doctorate. Only 13% reported they had no further educational plans. 84% felt their undergraduate education prepared them “moderately” (26%) or “greatly” (58%) for post‐baccalaureate education. We are unable to isolate the impact on advance degrees of the capstone experience alone.

• With regard to occupational choices, the ultimate career choices of alumni, including those pending advanced degree completion, are highly related to lifelong commitments to learning: 21% education related (teaching, educational administration, librarian, counseling), 10% health services related (medical doctoral level), 9% science/math related (including 4.4% as a scientific researcher), 5% arts/humanities related (including 3% writer, journalist or publisher), 19% social service related (including 4.5% law, 4.4% government/public policy, 4.4% non‐profit/philanthropy, and 16% business/finance related (including 4.6% business executive, and 4.0% business owner/entrepreneur). 80% felt their undergraduate experience prepared them “moderately” (37%) or “greatly” (43%) for their current career. What appears to be a lower rating for preparation for an alumni’s current career than for advanced degree preparation is perhaps explained by alumni migrating to careers less closely related to their undergraduate major.

• Alumni also report “moderate” or “a lot” of participation in organizations: professional, 47%; civic/community, 33%; cultural/arts, 31%; religious, 27%; political, 10%; service (e.g. Rotary, Kiwanis), 11%.

• Overall, these results seem to point to alumni lifestyles with strong lifelong learning attributes. That the capstone experience makes a unique contribution to these results is suggested by the responses to the questions noted above regarding the capstone’s contribution, and also by alumni open‐ended responses to the question “What about your capstone experience (good or bad) had the most impact on you?”, which echoed the same positive themes for lifelong learning (see discussion in Section 2 below). When categorized by topic and ranked by frequency count, the most frequent topics are listed below, and were commented on by at least 10 to 25 percent of alumni. In descending order of frequency they are:

o Project management o Sense of accomplishment o A positive adviser experience o Independence/freedom o Positive for graduate school o Confidence‐building o Time‐management o Writing skills o Research skills – ability to do research o Positive career impact

In summary, the alumni survey indicates that alumni in all the cohorts surveys, 1, 5, and 10 years out, generally perceive the capstone as having been a positive experience that contributed to their skill development, intellectual self‐confidence, and career and graduate school preparation. Their graduate degree plans and attainment, career choices, and participation in profession and civic organizations are further evidence of lifestyles drawing on lifelong learning.

Part 7, Page: 9

Concluding Remarks

That gender is not significant in predicting the ratings is encouraging, as it would not be desirable to have capstone programs that have lower impact based on gender. Similarly, the ratings for the capstone experience and contribution to development seem fairly high and even across academic divisions. As noted above, while the general trend is lower ratings for students with lower overall GPAs, the first drop in the ratings occurs going from the A/A‐/B+ group down to the B level, so the results are about the same for the highest achieving students down to the B+ level, about 80% of our senior students. The lower rating for the lower 20% of students is still a concern to explore, of course. The higher ratings for Red College provide an opportunity to explore whether Red is doing something special in their approach that is worth emulating. Since Tan College is currently just developing a universal senior capstone program, the lower ratings by Tan alumni may actually be an encouraging result for our study in that it might indicate that higher impacts can be achieved through centrally developed and supported universal capstone programs that are a focus of the overall curriculum rather than through programs fielded only by selected majors.

Part 7, Page: 10

blank page

Part 7, Page: 11

SECTION 2: Analysis of Responses to the open‐ended question: “What about your capstone experience (good or bad) had the most impact on you?”

Part 7, Page: 12

Teagle Capstone Project HEDS 2010 Alumni Survey, Additional Capstone Impact Question The four private liberal arts colleges in the Teagle Capstone study (Allegheny College, Augustana College, The College of Wooster, and Washington College) participated in the 2009‐10 Higher Education Data Sharing (HEDS) Alumni Survey to investigate alumni reports of the impact of the senior capstone experience on their post‐graduate personal and professional lives, and their retrospective thoughts on the nature and value of the capstone experience. The graduating class cohorts of 2007, 2004 and 1999 were surveyed to represent different post‐graduate life/career stages ‐ two, five and ten years out, respectively.

A set of supplemental questions focusing on capstone experiences was added to the survey. This report describes the responses to the single open‐ended question included in the supplemental questions: What about your capstone experience (good or bad) had the most impact on you?

For this report, the four participating colleges are identified by aliases: Red, Tan, White, and Yellow. Three of the institutions (Red, White, and Yellow) had a universal capstone requirement in place for the three graduating classes. Tan College is currently in the process of implementing a universal senior capstone program, so comments from Tan are not included in this report.

General Findings Of 757 alumni from the Red, White, and Yellow schools, 461 responded with comments to this open‐ended capstone impact question. Ranked by frequency count, at least 10 to 25 percent of alumni who responded to the open‐ended question commented on the following 10 categories:

Project management (104) Sense of accomplishment (90) Positive advisor experience (82) Independence / freedom (81) Positive for graduate school (75) Confidence‐building (64) Time management (62) Liberal arts skills ‐ writing (61) Research skills – ability to do research (54) Positive for career (44)

From this list we can see that many alumni reported that the capstone experience provided opportunities to develop project management and time management skills, they felt a sense of accomplishment, they considered the capstone a confidence‐building experience, they had positive advising experiences, they enjoyed the independence/freedom that the project granted, and it was a positive experience in terms of graduate schools and careers. Toward the bottom of the list are a liberal arts skill ‐ writing and a research skill. Most of these categories are reported by at least 10 percent of alumni from each of the three schools. (“Confidence‐building” does not appear on the White school list, and “positive for career” appears only on the Red school list. At least 10 percent of alumni of the White school also reported on “negative advisor experience” and “good topic”.) The rankings by frequency of reporting differ for each school. For example, “positive advising experience” is ranked first by the Red school, fourth by the White school, and ninth by the Yellow school. “Positive for graduate school” is ranked seventh for the Red school, and third for the White and Yellow schools is another example.

Page 1 of 1 Part 7, Page: 13

TimothySchermer

Text Box

Alumi Survey Report Section 2

Questions we might consider: • Is there significance to this set of top ten comment categories and the ordering? • Is there anything significant about what didn’t make the top 10? A category we might have

expected? However, if we were to create umbrella categories (described below) for gains in research skills, gains in liberal arts skills, and academic‐related comments, then 15 to 30 percent of alumni commenting on capstone impact reported gains in one or more research skills, one or more liberal arts skills, and one or more of other academic‐related skills/activities. These three umbrella categories would not only appear on the top‐ten list, but research skills and liberal arts skills would top that list. Alumni who responded to the Impact question commented on these three umbrella areas: Research skills (126) Liberal arts skills (117) Academic‐related (66)

Research skills include doing research, dealing with failure, choosing a topic, having a bad topic chosen, developing ideas, having an oral defense, accepting criticism, communicating results, working at an off‐site research center, meeting professionals in the field, becoming conversant in the field, appreciating scientific process, doing field research, having a laboratory experience, and applying for a grant.

Liberal arts skills include applying knowledge, writing, creative thinking, lifelong learning, communicating verbally, critical thinking, memorizing, analyzing, having information fluency, problem‐solving, having technology skills, having disciplinary skills, and having a multitude of skills.

Academic‐related comments include coursework or disciplinary integration, culminating experience, exploration of a topic in depth, pursuing own interests, continuation of study in the capstone area, continuation of considering questions related to capstone, learning experience, creation of an original work, and introduction to research.

The following 10 categories of responses produced the next highest frequency of comments about the capstone impact (from 4 to 9.9 percent of alumni responding to the question): Negative advisor experience (39)

Influenced future life choices (29) Liberal arts skills – critical thinking (28) Research skills – oral defense (27)

Personal qualities that helped capstone (25) Personal development (22)

Research skills – choosing a topic (20) Academic ‐ learning experience (19) Liberal arts skills – oral communication (18) Liberal arts skills – analysis (18)

The first negative comment about the capstone experience, a poor or weak advising experience, appears in this grouping with nearly 10 percent of alumni who responded to the question reporting a negative advising experience. Additional individual liberal arts skills (critical thinking, oral communication, analysis, and research skills), oral defense, and choosing a topic are also on this second‐tier list.


The final listing is made up of comment categories by at least a handful of alumni (10 to 17): Academic – depth (15) Academic – continue to study topic (14)

Research skills – poor topic chosen (14) Positive impact of process (13)

Project size (13) Recognition (10) Research skills – dealing with failure (10) Research skills – development of ideas (10)

Sets school or students apart (10) Stressful experience (10) Academic – integrate courses or fields (10)

Two additional negative comment categories appear on this third‐tier list of comments: research skills ‐ poor topic chosen, and stressful experience. Several of the academic‐related comments also appear here: the capstone was an opportunity to explore a topic in depth, alumni continue to study their capstone topic, they learned to deal with failure in research, and they had the opportunity to develop ideas as well as to integrate learning from multiple courses or disciplines. Alumni reporting a poor, very poor, or exceptionally poor overall capstone experience: For the 22 alumni reporting a poor overall capstone experience, 17 responded to the capstone impact question. Ten alumni, nine of whom were female, commented that they had had a bad or weak advising experience. Comments ranged from having advisors with personal problems that interfered with their advising to having advisors who disliked them and were out to “destroy their reputation.” Others noted that their advisor didn’t understand their topics, were very rigid and stifled their creativity, and were not understanding about personal issues affecting the project (alumni’s mother was diagnosed with cancer). Another alumni’s advisor was changed just before senior year, and others noted that their advisors were not supportive, did not have time, or simply were not a good fit. Although negative advising was the only common factor for a majority of alumni reporting an overall poor capstone, the majority of alumni reporting a negative advising experience had a good or neutral overall capstone experience. Half of the alumni reporting a negative advising experience (19 out of 38) had an overall good capstone experience, and one‐quarter reporting a negative advising experience (n=9) had an overall neutral capstone experience. Questions we might consider:

• What are the characteristics of a bad (good) advising experience?

• Do other capstone experiences/elements occur together with a bad advising experience (e.g., capstone topic, gender)?

• What are the characteristics of an overall ‘good’ capstone experience when the advising experience was ‘bad’? Did having to compensate for the bad advising help the student develop more strongly in some areas?

• Do the results from last year’s senior surveys show a similar result? Other than the negative advising experience, the comments from alumni who had a poor overall experience varied. Three alumni reported that they had problems with their topics – not being allowed to select their topic or having a topic they did not want to research; these three were also females who had negative advising experiences. One alumnus reported having had both a poor advisor and a good


advisor, but had a negative second reader and departmental problems, the combination leading to a poor capstone experience. Comments focused on the process being too restrictive, inequities in capstone requirements between academic divisions, the opportunity cost of the capstone (i.e. lost time to apply for jobs and graduate school), preference to have done a community project rather than an academic project, inoperable equipment in the department that was neglected, rapid turnover of faculty in the department, project being irrelevant to future education or career, capstone being too stressful, and a negative experience with a visiting faculty member. (Overall, only two comments were made regarding a negative experience with a visiting faculty member.) Selected comments include:

While I felt good about the achievement of writing such a lengthy project, I received such negative support from my faculty advisor that it has caused me to view the entire project negatively. If I had felt more supported in my efforts, I believe I would view the project in a better light.

Not having an advisor that was a good fit for me or a topic that I wanted to research.

I was told that I did not have enough experience to do the capstone that I wanted to do, which to me defeats the purpose of the learning experience.

Characteristics of the 22 alumni who reported having a poor capstone experience include: By overall capstone experience: exceptionally poor (3), very poor (5), and poor (14) By graduation year: 1999 (8), 2004 (6), and 2007 (8)

By college: Red (4), White (2), and Yellow (16) By sex: female (12), male (10) By average grade: A/A‐ (7), B+/B (5), B‐/C+ (9), C or lower (1)

By capstone grade: 1(3), 2(6), 3(4), 4(3), and not reported (6) By capstone discipline: Art History (1), Biochemistry (1), Business (1), Chemistry (3),

Communication (1), Environmental Science (4), English (3), Geology (1), Political Science (2), Psychology (3), and Theatre (1).

Alumni reporting a neutral overall capstone experience: For the 39 alumni who reported that they had a neutral overall capstone experience, 25 responded to the capstone impact question with a large minority commenting on a bad or weak advising experience. Nine alumni, eight of whom were female, commented that they had had a negative advising experience. Comments ranged from poor communication with the advisor, little help from the advisor with structure, topic, and general support, difficulty contacting the advisor, lack of clarity and effort from the advisor, little feedback until the last‐minute from the advisor who also forgot the due date, and competing interests of the advisor and another faculty member during the oral defense. Four of the 25 alumni who commented, reported on negative issues related to their topics. One chose a topic that was not interesting and another chose a topic in which he became disinterested as the project progressed. The two others wished they had had more guidance from their advisors on choosing a topic, one reporting that her advisor had little knowledge on her topic or related topics. Questions we might consider:

• Do female students have a different set of expectations regarding the senior‐mentor relationship from male students?

• It appears that advisor and topic problems can lead to a less than positive experience. Are these independent?


Other comments were scattered across a range of topics. Some were positive, some negative, and some neutral. Among the positive comments were three alumni who wrote that the capstone helped prepare them for graduate school, another three that it helped with time management, and yet another three that it helped with large‐project management. Three commented that they benefited from the research and writing skills that they gained from their capstone projects; one of these three alumni had no comments indicating a negative experience and two of these three commented on a negative advising experience. Some of the negative comments related to a second reader, the lack of independence, personal qualities (procrastination and lack of motivation), that made it difficult to do a good job, stress related to the project, and a lack of resources for the project. Selected comments include:

I did it on a topic that wasn't really interesting to me. At the time, I didn't have any better ideas, but would have done something different if I could go back. Because the topic wasn't in my wheelhouse, I didn't put as much into it, or get as much out of it as I could/should have.

My thesis adviser was the worst thing about my capstone experience. He was not particularly helpful, didn't seem very interested, and made no effort to clearly explain what he was looking for. The research and writing experience of a large research project were a good background to prepare me for graduate school.

I don't feel the proper guidance, direction, aid was given. Perhaps more knowledge on my topic or related topics to help guide me to a better topic, resources etc. would have been beneficial. I learned a significant amount more in grad school on the topic and area I chose, if I had been pointed in the right direction and resources made known etc. it would have been much more beneficial.

I think that more structure/assistance in finding a topic would have been helpful for me.

Characteristics of the 39 alumni who reported having a neutral capstone experience include: By graduation year: 1999 (17), 2004 (15), and 2007 (7)

By college: Red (10), White (5), and Yellow (24) By sex: female (22), male (17) By average grade: A/A‐ (10), B+/B (19), B‐/C+ (8), C or lower (2)

By capstone grade: 1(0), 2(15), 3(12), 4(4), and not reported (8) By capstone discipline: Chemistry (2), Communication (4), Computer Science (1), Economics (4),

English (4), Environmental Science (3), Geology (1), German (1), International Studies (4), Mathematics (1), Political Science (4), Psychology (6), Sociology (1), and unknown (3).

By single/double major: single majors (33), double majors (6) Alumni reporting a good, very good, or exceptionally good overall capstone experience: For the 655 alumni who reported that they had a good overall capstone experience, 416 responded to the capstone impact question. Of the 416 who commented, a small minority of 19 had a negative advising experience and a good overall capstone experience. Four of these 19 commented that they had both a positive and negative advising experience. One was a double major with a good and bad advising experience. One had an advisor who put the alumni in touch with someone off‐campus who became the surrogate advisor. Two alumni commented that they found other faculty within the department with whom they could work and developed strong professional relationships. Four additional alumni also had negative issues with research topics. A lack of resources was noted by three alumni with weak advising experiences. A couple other alumni noted that they weren’t really prepared to take on the capstone, and one commented that he made minimal effort after being accepted to graduate school.


The positive impacts on which these alumni with weak advising experiences commented included liberal arts‐based and other outcomes: improving writing, critical thinking, and oral communication skills, project and time management skills, and research skills, as well as the benefit of working at a major research center. Others wrote about the positive aspects of the “independence” of the project and “freedom” to create, and that the capstone gave them an edge in the job market, or helped prepare them for graduate school.

My senior capstone proved to me that I could synthesize information on a high enough level to generate an eighty page paper. I learned that I love research, the value of coffee and list‐making and how to work effectively on my own. My advisor helped me very little with my senior capstone, which pushed me to ask for help from other departmental professors and ultimately led to several strong professional and personal relationships. While daunting initially, the IS process is a huge time of growth that I will never forget.

The ability to do hands‐on molecular biology research was good but the tools were primitive and the coaching was sporadic which somewhat diminished the value of the project.

Exceptionally good capstone experience: Of the 416 alumni, who commented on the capstone impact and had a good, very good, or exceptionally good experience, 170 had an exceptionally good experience. What is the capstone impact that makes for an “exceptionally good” capstone experience? Alumni who reported having exceptionally good capstone experiences reported a favorable advising experience more than any other impact comment; nearly one‐third reported a favorable advising experience. The table below ranks the top 10 impact categories commented on by alumni reporting an exceptionally good experience as well as the umbrella comments for research skills, liberal arts skills, and academic‐related gains. Twelve to 31 percent of alumni, who commented on the impact question and had an exceptionally good experience, reported an impact in the umbrella categories.

Teagle Capstone Project Number of Comments by Degree of Good Overall Capstone Experience

Comment on Capstone Impact:

Overall Capstone Experience Exceptionally

good Very good Good Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Positive advising experience 53 31.2% 24 13.3% 3 4.6%Project management 49 28.8% 42 23.2% 10 15.4%Sense of accomplishment 47 27.6% 34 18.8% 6 9.2%Independence / freedom 36 21.2% 33 18.2% 9 13.8%Confidence 33 19.4% 27 14.9% 4 6.2%Positive for graduate school 33 19.4% 32 17.7% 6 9.2%Time management 26 15.3% 23 12.7% 9 13.8%Research skills ‐ doing research 25 14.7% 18 9.9% 8 12.3%Liberal arts skills ‐ writing 25 14.7% 28 15.5% 5 7.7%Positive for career 20 11.8% 18 9.9% 5 7.7%Umbrella skills Research skills 50 29.4% 46 25.4% 19 29.2% Liberal Arts skills 47 27.6% 57 31.5% 10 15.4% Academic‐related 32 18.8% 26 14.4% 6 9.2%


Question we might consider: • Is there anything to be learned by looking at the bottom 10 categories of comments? The

categories that had the least impact?

The alumni who commented on a positive advising experience and had an exceptionally good experience commented on an average of over four categories. A comment of a positive advising experience combined with research skills (21 times) and a sense of accomplishment (19 times) more than any other comment categories. Seventy percent of all those who commented on a positive advising experience and an exceptionally good capstone experience were female, with 62 percent from the Red school and an approximately equal division among the three graduating cohorts. Alumni who had a very good experience had similarly high frequencies of comments in impact areas that the alumni with exceptionally good experiences had; exceptions included positive advising experiences, sense of accomplishment, confidence, and research skills – doing research. The greatest differential was with a positive advising experience, where alumni who reported an exceptionally good overall capstone experience were more than twice as likely to comment on a favorable advising experience. Selected comments:

I had an absolutely fantastic advisor who made me feel excited about my research project and confident in my intellectual abilities.

It gave me an advantage in my graduate programs ‐ having completed a thesis with original fieldwork, experience, and data was invaluable to my acceptance into further programs. My work today continues to build on things I explored in my undergraduate thesis.

Pros: Work on long‐term project, self‐guided education, publication opportunities; Cons: None.

Good capstone experience: Of the 417 alumni, who commented on the capstone impact and had a good, very good, or exceptionally good experience, 65 had a good experience. What is the capstone impact that makes for a “good” capstone experience and how does it differ from one that makes for an “exceptionally good” capstone experience? The table above shows that very few alumni commented on a positive advising experience who rated the overall capstone experience good. The only comment categories where percent of responses between alumni who rated the overall capstone experience exceptionally good or good are similar are time management and umbrella research skills. Selected comments:

Being able to finish it and defend it orally has given me a great deal of confidence in my abilities to do that at work.

I learned project management skills and how to work independently without a lot of direction.

It looks good on my CV, and was an absolute necessity to have on my graduate school application. My doctoral program rarely accepted individuals who had not completed a research project as an undergraduate or post‐bac.

The time and dedication along with the ability to manage such a project had a positive impact on my confidence to tackle similar projects since graduation.


of 8

Characteristics of the 655 alumni who reported having a good overall capstone experience include: By overall capstone exp.: exceptionally good (228), very good (300), and good (127) By graduation year: 1999 (206), 2004 (232), and 2007 (217)

By college: Red (229), White (51), and Yellow (375) By sex: female (407), male (245), and no response (3) By average grade: A/A‐ (316), B+/B (270), B‐/C+ (60), C or lower (6), and no response (3)

By capstone grade: 1(1), 2(30), 3(188), 4(368), and not reported (67) Questions we might consider:

• What categories of comments had the most positive responses? • What categories of comments had the most negative responses? • Do any areas overlap all quality‐of‐capstone categories? • Does this tell us anything about what contributes to the quality of a capstone? • Does not feeling prepared for the capstone appear as an issue?

Part 7, Page: 20

TimothySchermer

Text Box

The above commentary is by Thersa Ford, College of Wooster. See Appendix G below for a table of the frequencies of comments as categorized by topic.

blank page

Part 7, Page: 21

ALUMNI SURVEY REPORT APPENDICES

Part 7, Page: 22

Appendix A

Table A1. Composite Results

ALUMNI SURVEY - Classes of 1999, 2004 and 2007 All N= 902 Teagle Senior Capstone Study Font coloration threshold values: Percents: 5.0%

Means 0.15A. Evaluation of your Undergraduate Education

1

2 4-point scale: Not at all - Greatly Current importance Extent enhanced3 % greatly mean % greatly mean4 Critical Thinking5 Acquire new skills and knowledge 84.3% 3.82 70.2% 3.676 Think analytically and logically 88.6% 3.87 76.0% 3.747 Formulate creative/original ideas 75.0% 3.71 63.5% 3.568 Academic ability 50.9% 3.39 65.2% 3.609

10 Skills/Learning11 Write effectively 72.9% 3.68 70.5% 3.6612 Use quantitative tools 48.3% 3.33 40.2% 3.1613 Appreciate arts, literature, music, drama 28.3% 2.78 42.4% 3.1314 Gain in-depth knowledge of a field 67.5% 3.62 54.3% 3.4115 Read or speak a foreign language 11.3% 2.06 15.3% 2.131617 Social/Moral Awareness18 Develop an awareness of social problems 48.7% 3.31 41.5% 3.2119 Place current problems in perspective 58.4% 3.48 43.3% 3.2520 Understand moral/ethical issues 62.1% 3.53 45.7% 3.292122 Self Development23 Understand myself 63.7% 3.55 57.9% 3.4724 Function independently, without supervision 87.0% 3.86 65.5% 3.5925 Develop self-esteem 62.7% 3.53 52.8% 3.3926 Establish a course of action to accomplish goals 82.4% 3.79 59.7% 3.5327 Intellectual self-confidence 74.9% 3.72 60.8% 3.5228 Develop desire for continued learning 73.9% 3.68 67.9% 3.592930 Relationship Skills31 Lead and supervise tasks and groups of people 58.0% 3.43 36.3% 3.0732 Relate well to different races, nations, religions 65.1% 3.53 41.2% 3.1033 Function effectively as a member of a team 77.4% 3.71 52.0% 3.3734 Communicate well orally 88.1% 3.87 55.9% 3.4535 Understand others 79.1% 3.77 51.8% 3.433637 Understanding Science and Technology38 Understand the process of science 35.8% 2.92 35.4% 3.0039 Use technology 60.2% 3.49 34.2% 3.0540

1. The list below contains some abilities and types of knowledge that may be developed in a bachelor's degree program. Please indicate 1) how important each is in your personal and professional life, and 2) the extent to which each was enhanced by your undergraduate experiences.

1 10/11/2010Part 7, Page: 23

Appendix A

4142 4-point scale: Very dissatisfied - Very satisfied Satisfaction43 % very sat. mean44 Academic Experiences45 Academic advising 53.2% 3.4446 Contact with faculty 75.2% 3.7247 Quality of teaching 74.6% 3.7448 Courses in major field 62.9% 3.5949 Courses outside your major 43.7% 3.4050 Independent study/research 62.4% 3.5751 Campus Services and Facilities52 Career services 18.6% 2.8253 Financial services 24.7% 3.0954 Library resources 45.9% 3.4355 Recreation/athletics 43.9% 3.3856 Residential life 37.6% 3.2557 Campus Climate58 Student voice in policies 22.5% 3.0659 Campus safety 54.4% 3.5160 Sense of belonging 64.3% 3.6061 Ethnic/racial diversity 20.9% 2.8862 Social life on campus 46.2% 3.3763

6465 4-point scale: Not at all - Greatly Fulfilled Expectations66 % greatly mean67 68 Enhance your intellectual growth 75.7% 3.7369 Acquire in-depth knowledge in a particular field 58.5% 3.4970 Develop competency in career relevant skills 41.2% 3.1971 Foster your personal growth 71.9% 3.6772 Promote your ability to form relationships 55.9% 3.4673

7475 4-point scale: Very dissatisfied - Very satisfied Satisfaction7677 Very satisfied 73.7%78 Generally satisfied 23.6%79 Generally dissatisfied 1.9%80 Very dissatisfied 0.8%81 mean: 3.7082

8384 5-point scale: Definitely not - Definitely would85 Definitely would 75.1%86 Probably would 15.2%87 Maybe 6.2%88 Probably not 2.8%89 Definitely not 0.7%90 mean: 4.6191

5. Would you encourage a high school senior who is like you were as a high school senior (similar background, interests, and temperament) to attend your undergraduate institution?

2. Using the perspective gained since you graduated, how satisfied are you with each of the following services or aspects of your college?

3. To what extent did your undergraduate experience fulfill your original expectations in the following areas?

4. Overall, how satisfied have you been with your undergraduate education?

2 10/11/2010Part 7, Page: 24

Appendix A

92 B. College Impact93

949596 4 point contribution scale : Involvement Contribution**97 1=none, 2=a little, 3=moderate, 4=extensive % moderate % moderate98 or extensive or extensive mean99 Extracurricular Activities

100 Student or campus government 12.5% 36.7% 2.24101 Intercollegiate athletics 29.9% 67.7% 2.95102 Intramural sports 31.2% 37.2% 2.20103 Student publications 12.0% 37.8% 2.26104 Performing arts/music 33.1% 56.0% 2.70105 Political organization or club 23.7% 46.1% 2.41106 Community service 47.1% 57.3% 2.70107 Fraternity/Sorority 35.3% 69.7% 2.99108 Religious groups 17.1% 51.2% 2.63109 Academic Activities110 Internships 44.5% 81.2% 3.28111 Study abroad 30.2% 93.5% 3.67112 Work on faculty research 60.4% 65.0% 2.89113 Independent study 59.6% 74.3% 3.08114 Employment Activities115 On-campus employment 68.8% 58.2% 2.68116 Off-campus employment 27.4% 57.0% 2.66117 ** Contribution to Development excludes those whose involvement was "none".118

119120 4-point scale: Not at all - Greatly Experience Prepared 121 % moderately or greatly mean122 Post-Baccalaureate education 84.2% 3.34123 Current career 79.8% 3.19124 Social and civic involvement 62.2% 2.81125 Interpersonal relationships and family living 72.3% 3.02126

6. Please evaluate each of the following activities for your level of involvement while an undergraduate. For those activities in which you were involved, please evaluate the contribution of each activity to your personal or professional life after graduation.

7. To what extent did your undergraduate experience prepare you for the following activities?

3 10/11/2010Part 7, Page: 25

Appendix A

127 C. Continuing Involvement with Alma Mater128

129

130 4-point scale: Never - Frequently Participated in Activity 131 % frequently or occasionally mean132 Activity133 Read campus publications 72.2% 2.97134 Visited the institution's website 67.4% 2.79135 Visited campus for any purpose 44.1% 2.33136 Attended alumni functions on campus 19.1% 1.61137 Attended alumni functions off campus 21.3% 1.67138 Attended alma mater sporting events 13.5% 1.50139 Served as an alumni admissions volunteer 3.4% 1.12140 Participated in a career advisory program 4.8% 1.24141 Participated in an alumni continuing education program 0.2% 1.02142 Participated in an alumni community service program 4.2% 1.14143 Contributed to or solicited for the annual fund 31.6% 1.94144 Maintained contact with other alumni 90.3% 3.56145 Maintained contact with faculty members 41.6% 2.28146 Maintained contact with administrators 11.4% 1.40147148 9. To what extent do you identify with your undergraduate alma mater?149 4-point scale: Not at all - Very strongly150 Very strongly 35.4%151 Strongly 40.2%152 Somewhat 19.2%153 Very little 4.6%154 Not at all 0.7%155 mean: 4.05156

157 D. Post-Graduation Activities158

159160 Immediately after grad Currently161 % % 162 Primary Activity 23163 Employment full-time 55.2% 69.8%164 Employment part-time 22.8% 11.9%165 Graduate/professional school full-time 32.7% 18.6%166 Graduate/professional school part-time 5.2% 9.5%167 Not employed, seeking employment 5.5% 2.8%168 Not employed by choice (homemaker, volunteer, etc 3.3% 2.4%169

8. In the past five years, how frequently have you participated in the following activities sponsored by your undergraduate alma mater?

10. Which of the following best describes your primary activities during the year immediately following your undergraduate degree and currently?

4 10/11/2010Part 7, Page: 26

Appendix A

170

171

Percentages of non-blank responsesYear after graduation Currently Ultimately

172 % % %173 Business/Finance Related174 Accounting 1.1% 0.9% 0.6%175 Advertising, Public Relations 0.7% 1.0% 0.8%176 Business, clerical 3.0% 0.6% 0.0%177 Business Executive 1.2% 4.6% 4.6%178 Business Owner, Proprietor, Entrepreneur 0.8% 1.4% 4.0%179 Business sales person or buyer 4.0% 1.5% 0.1%180 Event Coordinator 0.7% 0.9% 1.1%181 Finance 2.7% 3.7% 1.8%182 Hospitality, Travel/Tourism 1.5% 1.0% 0.2%183 Human Resources Recruiting 1.5% 1.8% 1.7%184 Insurance Broker 0.7% 0.5% 0.0%185 Real Estate 0.4% 0.9% 0.8%186 18.3% 18.8% 15.8%187 Education Related188 College/University Administration 2.8% 2.5% 1.5%189 College/University Teaching or Research 1.7% 3.6% 7.2%190 Education:teacher/administrator/counselor (primary/seco 10.2% 12.6% 11.0%191 Librarian or information science 0.2% 0.7% 1.3%192 14.9% 19.4% 21.0%193 Arts/Humanities Related194 Arts/Entertainment 0.7% 0.5% 0.5%195 Broadcasting, Media Productions 0.5% 0.5% 0.3%196 Graphic Designer 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%197 Interior Decorator 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%198 Museum curator/gallery worker 0.2% 0.2% 0.5%199 Music/Film industry 0.2% 0.5% 0.9%200 Writer, journalist, or publisher 1.9% 0.9% 2.9%201 3.5% 2.5% 5.1%202 Health Services Related203 Clinical Psychologist 0.1% 0.6% 1.8%204 Dentist (including Orthodontist 0.0% 0.3% 0.5%205 Dietician 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%206 Nurse 0.0% 0.6% 1.0%207 Optometrist 0.0% 0.2% 0.3%208 Pharmacist 0.1% 0.6% 0.7%209 Physician 0.8% 2.0% 3.4%210 Therapist 0.9% 1.8% 2.4%211 Veterinarian 0.0% 0.6% 1.0%212 2.0% 6.7% 11.3%213 Science/Math Related214 Archeologist 0.4% 0.1% 0.3%215 Architect 0.5% 0.8% 0.8%216 Computer Programmer/analyst 2.1% 1.8% 1.5%217 Conservationist or Forester 0.4% 0.7% 0.7%218 Engineer 0.8% 1.4% 1.0%219 Lab technician or hygienist 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%220 Scientific Researcher 6.3% 5.4% 4.4%221 10.4% 10.2% 8.7%

11. What was your principal occupation immediately after graduation? What is your current occupation? What career would you ultimately like to have?

5 10/11/2010Part 7, Page: 27

Appendix A

222 Social Service Related223 Clergy 0.5% 1.1% 1.5%224 Foreign Service, Diplomacy, International Relations 0.2% 0.1% 1.4%225 Government, Politics, Public Policy 2.8% 4.4% 4.1%226 Law enforcement officer 0.0% 0.3% 0.7%227 Lawyer (attorney) or judge 0.2% 4.5% 6.1%228 Non-profit/Philanthropy 6.1% 4.4% 3.6%229 Social activist/Community organizer 1.1% 0.3% 0.3%230 Social welfare or recreation worker 1.7% 1.1% 1.0%231 Sports, recreation 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%232 12.6% 16.4% 18.7%233 Other234 Farmer or Rancher 0.4% 0.2% 0.2%235 Homemaker 0.1% 1.6% 1.1%236 Military Science 0.2% 0.2% 0.1%237 Other 36.4% 23.6% 11.0%238 Undecided 1.1% 0.5% 6.9%239 38.2% 26.0% 19.4%240241 Total non-blank responses 846 883 871242243244 12. What is your current annual income range before taxes?245 N % 246 No earned income 58 6.5%247 Less than $19,999 110 12.4%248 $20,000 to $39,999 222 24.9%249 $40,000 to $59,999 240 27.0%250 $60,000 to $79,999 119 13.4%251 $80,000 to $99,999 69 7.8%252 $100,000 to $119,999 31 3.5%253 $more than $120,000 41 4.6%254 890 100.0%255 % $60,000 or more 260 29.2%256

257258 Participation Extent259 Type of Organization % Not at all % Moderately or a lot260 Civic/community 26.8% 33.1%261 Cultural/arts 34.9% 30.8%262 Educational service (e.g. PTA) 71.9% 14.8%263 Political 64.5% 10.1%264 Professional 23.3% 47.4%265 Recreational (e.g., sports club) 31.2% 37.5%266 Religious 50.2% 27.3%267 Service (e.g., Rotary, Kiwanis) 72.2% 11.4%268 Youth (e.g. little league, scouting) 69.5% 14.0%269

13. To what extent have you voluntarily participated in the following organizations since graduating from your alma mater?

6 10/11/2010Part 7, Page: 28

Appendix A

270271 Further Degrees Percents

272

received working on subtotal recv'd or working on

%highest hoped for

273 Second Bachelors 4.8% 1.7% 6.4% 1.2%274 Masters Masters total: 35.7% 20.0% 55.7% 24.7%275 Architecture 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%276 Business 4.4% 2.8% 7.2% 6.5%277 Education 6.4% 4.8% 11.2% 4.0%278 Engineering 0.2% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6%279 Humanities or Arts 2.9% 2.1% 5.0% 2.9%280 Life Science 2.2% 1.0% 3.2% 1.0%281 Math or Computer 0.8% 0.2% 1.0% 1.0%282 Physical Science 1.1% 0.4% 1.6% 0.9%283 Psychology 2.5% 0.7% 3.2% 0.4%284 Religion 1.1% 0.6% 1.7% 0.6%285 Social Science 3.4% 1.9% 5.3% 1.9%286 Other Masters 10.5% 5.3% 15.9% 4.9%287 Professional Degrees Prof Degrees total: 12.0% 7.4% 19.4% 6.3%288 Law school 4.4% 2.8% 7.2% 3.2%289 Medical school 2.8% 2.5% 5.3% 1.2%290 Other professional 4.8% 2.1% 6.9% 1.9%291 Doctorate Doctorate total: 4.1% 7.1% 11.2% 21.3%292 Education 0.0% 0.3% 0.3% 4.0%293 Engineering 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3%294 Humanities or Arts 0.1% 1.6% 1.7% 3.3%295 Life Science 1.7% 1.7% 3.3% 2.3%296 Math or Computer 0.3% 0.2% 0.6% 0.6%297 Physical Science 0.6% 1.0% 1.6% 1.7%298 Psychology 0.2% 0.9% 1.1% 2.3%299 Religion 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 1.3%300 Social Science 0.7% 1.0% 1.7% 2.3%301 Other doctorate 0.6% 0.2% 0.8% 3.1%302303 No further educational plans 12.5% 304

14. What further degree(s) have you received or are you currently working toward or do you hope to attain in the future?

7 10/11/2010Part 7, Page: 29

Appendix A

305 E. Alumni Profile306307 15. In what year did you complete your undergraduate degree? N %308 1999 289 32.0%309 2004 309 34.3%310 2007 304 33.7%311 Other 0 0.0%

312

313 Primary Major Secondary Major314 Business Related N % N %315 Accounting 7 0.8% 2 0.7%316 Business 38 4.3% 7 2.4%317 International Business 45 0.2% 0 0.0%318 subtotal: 90 5.3% 9 3.1%319 Education Related320 Early Childhood Devel 0 0.0% 1 0.3%321 Education 21 2.4% 21 7.1%322 Higher Education Administrator 0 0.0% 0 0.0%323 subtotal: 21 2.4% 22 7.5%324 Arts Related325 Art History 7 0.8% 5 1.7%326 Dance 1 0.1% 1 0.3%327 Music/Jazz/Popular Music 10 1.1% 4 1.4%328 Photography 1 0.1% 1 0.3%329 Theatre/Drama 10 1.1% 1 0.3%330 subtotal: 29 3.3% 12 4.1%331 Humanities332 Humanities 3 0.3% 3 1.0%333 Philosophy 13 1.5% 12 4.1%334 Theology/Religion 9 1.0% 14 4.8%335 subtotal: 25 2.8% 29 9.9%336 Language/Communications Related337 English 72 8.1% 24 8.2%338 Communications, media 38 4.3% 12 4.1%339 Foreign Languages 10 1.1% 33 11.2%340 Journalism 1 0.1% 0 0.0%341 Language and Literature 2 0.2% 1 0.3%342 subtotal: 123 13.9% 70 23.8%343 Natural Science Related344 Biological/Life Sciences 11 1.2% 1 0.3%345 Biology 102 11.5% 7 2.4%346 Chemistry 36 4.1% 6 2.0%347 Computer Sciences 21 2.4% 0 0.0%348 Dental Hygiene/Medicine 0 0.0% 1 0.3%349 Earth Sciences 10 1.1% 1 0.3%350 Engineering 2 0.2% 0 0.0%351 Environmental Studies 35 3.9% 6 2.0%352 Health Related Field 2 0.2% 1 0.3%353 Information Systems 0 0.0% 1 0.3%354 Mathematics 21 2.4% 12 4.1%355 Medicine 7 0.8% 2 0.7%356 Nursing 0 0.0% 0 0.0%357 Physics 11 1.2% 3 1.0%358 Public Health 0 0.0% 0 0.0%359 Statistics 0 0.0% 0 0.0%360 Veterinary Medicine 0 0.0% 1 0.3%361 Zoology 0 0.0% 0 0.0%362 subtotal: 258 29.1% 42 14.3%363 Social Science Related

16. What was the field of study of your undergraduate major(s)? (Select more than one ONLY if you had a double major)

8 10/11/2010Part 7, Page: 30

Appendix A

364 Anthropology 12 1.4% 2 0.7%365 Archaeology 6 0.7% 0 0.0%366 Clinical Psychology 1 0.1% 0 0.0%367 Cultural Studies 2 0.2% 0 0.0%368 Economics 42 4.7% 14 4.8%369 History 54 6.1% 8 2.7%370 Industrial/Organizational Psych 0 0.0% 0 0.0%371 International Relations 19 2.1% 4 1.4%372 Law 0 0.0% 0 0.0%373 Political Science/Government 64 7.2% 16 5.4%374 Psychology 91 10.3% 24 8.2%375 Public Policy 0 0.0% 2 0.7%376 Social Work 0 0.0% 3 1.0%377 Sociology 22 2.5% 11 3.7%378 Urban Studies 2 0.2% 0 0.0%379 Women Studies 3 0.3% 3 1.0%380 subtotal: 318 35.9% 87 29.6%381 Other382 American Sign Language 0 0.0% 0 0.0%383 Architecture 0 0.0% 0 0.0%384 Forensic Psychology 0 0.0% 0 0.0%385 Recreation, Parks Admin, Leisure 0 0.0% 0 0.0%386 Other 66 7.4% 23 7.8%387 subtotal: 66 7.4% 23 7.8%388389 Total non-blank responses 887 294390

391

392 3-point scale: Unrelated - Directly related393 Unrelated 11.7%394 Indirectly related 35.3%395 Directly related 53.0%396 mean: 2.41397398 18. What was the overall grade you received during your undergraduate career?399 A 20.0%400 A- 27.8%401 B+ 21.4%402 B 19.2%403 B-/C+ 10.2%404 C or below 1.3%405 406 19. Did you receive any of the following undergraduate awards as a senior?407 Latin honors 39.8%408 Phi Beta Kappa 14.2%409 Sigma Xi 1.4%410 Honors in major 32.7%411 412 20. Did you receive financial aid? If YES, indicate all that you received413 YES, received financial aid 89.5%414 If yes, did you receive…415 Merit award 73.7%416 Need-based grant 46.8%417 Loan 62.3%418 Work study 50.7%419

420421 No loans 30.2%

21. At the time you graduated, what was the total amount borrowed to finance your undergraduate education which you were personally responsible for paying?

17. How relevant is your undergraduate major field(s) of study to your current career?

9 10/11/2010Part 7, Page: 31

Appendix A

422 Less than $4,999 2.0%423 $5000 to $9,999 3.8%424 $10,000 to $14,999 6.7%425 $15,000 to $19,999 13.1%426 $20,000 - $24,999 12.9%427 $25,000 - $29,999 6.4%428 $30,000 or more 19.1%429 More than $0, but unable to estimate amount 5.8%

430431 For those who used loans: “Great extent”432 Allowed me to go to otherwise unaffordable institution 46.6%433 Focused job search on higher paying fields 12.7%434 Postponed or canceled post-baccalaureate education 6.3%435 23. What is your sex?436 Male 37.2%437 Female 62.8%438 24. What is your age?439 25 or younger 32.2%440 26 to 29 35.8%441 30 or older 32.0%442 25. What is your citizenship status?443 United States Citizen 98.2%444 US Permanent Resident 0.8%445 Non-US Citizen 1.0%446

447 26. What is your racial/ethnic background? (Select all that apply)

448 N % all responses449 Asian, Pacific Islander 16 1.8%450 Black, Non-Hispanic 13 1.4%451 Hispanic 6 0.7%452 Native American 3 0.3%453 White, Non-Hispanic 855 94.2%454 Other 15 1.7%455 Total responses (multiple selections allowed): 908 100.0%456457 27. What is your personal status?458 Married or living with partner 55.2%459 Widowed 0.1%460 Separated or divorced 0.9%461 Single 43.8%462 28. How many dependent children do you have?463 None 80.0%464 1 or 2 17.4%465 More than 2 2.2%466 29. How old is your oldest child/youngest child ? Oldest Youngest467 0 to 2 70.9% 87.9%468 3 to 5 19.8% 7.6%469 6 to 10 8.5% 3.2%470 11 to 15 0.4% 0.0%471 16 to 20 0.4% 1.3%472 20 or older 0.0% 0.0%473474

22. To what extent have your undergraduate educational loans cause the following?

10 10/11/2010Part 7, Page: 32

Appendix A

475 F. Capstone Experience476477478479 7-point scale: Exceptionally poor - Exceptionally good480 N %481 7 - Exceptionally good 260 30.9% 482 6 - Very good 344 40.9%483 5 - Good 155 18.4%484 4 - Neutral 51 6.1%485 3 - Poor 21 2.5%486 2 - Very poor 6 0.7%487 1 - Exceptionally poor 4 0.5%488 total: 841 100.0%489 mean: 5.88490

491492493 5-point scale: Not at all - Exceptionally good Contribution to development

494% not at all or very little % somewhat % quite a bit % very

much495 Managing a large project 6.8% 17.0% 25.9% 50.2%496 Learning effectively on my own 3.7% 15.2% 34.2% 47.0%497 Ability to make an effective oral presentation 11.2% 27.5% 32.0% 29.3%498 having confidence in my own abilities 7.6% 19.3% 32.6% 40.5%499 Ability to think critically and analytically 3.3% 16.8% 35.0% 44.8%500 Ability to think creatively 9.4% 19.8% 32.9% 37.9%501 Ability to write effectively 5.0% 16.5% 31.2% 47.2%502 Skill in the interpreting of data, evidence, texts, and/or w 6.0% 15.6% 32.0% 46.4%503 Integrating ideas from multiple disciplines 14.2% 27.8% 24.6% 33.4%504

*

Working collaboratively 36.8% 18.8% 17.9% 26.5%

505

* Seeing a connection between my intended career and its effect on society 28.6% 20.2% 18.5% 32.8%

506 * Tan only questions

507508509 5-point scale: Strongly disagree - Strongly agree Experience

510Percents of non-blank responses

% strongly disagree

or disagree% neutral

% agree or strongly agree

Total N

511 More intellectually challenging than my reg coursework 9.4% 23.0% 67.6% 842512 Developed more academically than from a reg course 17.9% 26.2% 55.9% 839513 Led to better understanding of skills, abilities, interests 8.7% 15.5% 75.9% 841514 ** Helped me clarify my career of graduate school objectives 31.6% 31.4% 37.0% 713515 Feel better prepared for job or grad school than peers 12.7% 19.6% 67.7% 841516 Positive influence on intellectual growth/int in ideas 5.6% 11.8% 82.6% 839517 Positive influence on personal growth, attitudes, values 7.3% 23.2% 69.6% 841518 ** Not asked on Tan's version

519520521 Compared value:

522Percents of non-blank responses More valuable

than my capstoneAs valuable as my capstone

Less valuable then my capstone

Total N

523 Additional courses in major 13.1% 35.7% 51.2% 838524 Additional courses outside of major 10.1% 26.1% 63.8% 831525 Participating in co-curricular activities 11.8% 32.1% 56.1% 829

3. Please indicate how strongly you agree with each of the following statements about your capstone experience.


1. Please rate your overall capstone experience

2. Please indicate the degree to which your senior project contributed to your development in the following areas:

11 10/11/2010Part 7, Page: 33

TimothySchermer

Text Box

ALL SCHOOLS COMBINED





*

Working collaboratively

505

* Seeing a connection between my intended career and its effect on society




% strongly disagree


% agree or stronglyagree

Total N

511 More intellectually challenging than reg course 7.4% 11.1% 81.5% 243512 Developed more academically than reg course 9.5% 20.6% 70.0% 243513 Better understanding of skills, abilities, interests 5.3% 6.2% 88.5% 243514 ** Clarified my career of graduate school objectives 27.0% 27.4% 45.6% 241515 Feel better prepared for job or grad school 9.5% 13.2% 77.3% 242516 Positive influence on intellectual growth/int in ideas 2.1% 8.6% 89.3% 243517 Positive influence on personal growth 4.1% 19.4% 76.4% 242518 ** Not asked on Tan's version


522

Percents of non-blank responses More valuable than my capstone

As valuable as my capstone


Total N






11 10/6/2010Part 7, Page: 34

TimothySchermer

Text Box

SCHOOL RED ALUMNI





*

Working collaboratively 36.8% 18.8% 17.9% 26.5%

505

* Seeing a connection between my intended career and its effect on society 28.6% 20.2% 18.5% 32.8%




% strongly disagree



Total N

511 More intellectually challenging than reg course 12.7% 24.6% 62.7% 126512 Developed more academically than reg course 23.8% 30.2% 46.0% 126513 Better understanding of skills, abilities, interests 10.4% 26.4% 63.2% 125514 ** Clarified my career of graduate school objectives 0515 Feel better prepared for job or grad school 20.6% 25.4% 54.0% 126516 Positive influence on intellectual growth/int in ideas 8.7% 13.5% 77.8% 126517 Positive influence on personal growth 7.1% 31.0% 61.9% 126518 ** Not asked on Tan's version


522




Total N






11 10/6/2010Part 7, Page: 35

TimothySchermer

Text Box

SCHOOL TAN ALUMNI





*


505





% strongly disagree



Total N



522




Total N






11 10/6/2010Part 7, Page: 36

TimothySchermer

Text Box

SCHOOL WHITE ALUMNI





*


505





% strongly disagree



Total N



522




Total N






11 10/6/2010Part 7, Page: 37

TimothySchermer

Text Box

SCHOOL YELLOW ALUMNI

Appendix B

Appendix Tables: Contribution to Development Means5 point scale: 1=not at all to 5 = very much; Highest mean in each row bolded iff differences (by row) were statistically significant p<.05.Coloration is Excel 2007 conditional formatting green-yellow-red color scaling.

Table B1

Red Tan White Yellow Total Sig.

CapstoneContrib Capstone contribution to development average 4.20 3.81 3.90 4.03 4.04 ***Contribution to development: Managing a large project 4.46 3.71 3.98 4.16 4.17 ***Contribution to development: Learning effectively on own 4.48 3.93 4.07 4.22 4.24 ***Contribution to development: Ability to make an effective oral presentation 3.71 3.71 3.53 3.84 3.77 Contribution to development: Having confidence in abilities 4.26 3.81 3.88 4.00 4.04 ***Contribution to development: Ability to think critically and analytically 4.37 3.91 4.10 4.21 4.21 ***Contribution to development: Ability to think creatively 4.20 3.86 3.76 3.91 3.97 ***Contribution to development: Ability to write effectively 4.43 3.86 4.38 4.14 4.20 ***Contribution to development:Skill in the interpreting of data, evidence, texts, and/or works 4.32 3.85 4.19 4.18 4.17 ***

Contribution to development:Integrating ideas from multiple disciplines 3.84 3.63 3.70 3.70 3.73

Table B2

Male Female Total Sig.Capstone contribution to development average 3.95 4.09 4.04 *

Contribution to development: Managing a large project 3.91 4.33 4.17 ***

Contribution to development: Learning effectively on own 4.12 4.31 4.24 **Contribution to development: Ability to make an effective oral presentation 3.69 3.82 3.77

Contribution to development: Having confidence in abilities 3.98 4.08 4.04 Contribution to development: Ability to think critically and analytically 4.18 4.23 4.21 Contribution to development: Ability to think creatively 3.90 4.02 3.97

Contribution to development: Ability to write effectively 4.07 4.28 4.20 **

Contribution to development: Skill in the interpreting of data, evidence, texts, and/or works 4.11 4.21 4.18

Contribution to development: Integrating ideas from multiple disciplines 3.73 3.73 3.73

Contribution to Development - By College

school

Contribution to Development - By Gender

Sex

1 10/11/2010Part 7, Page: 38

Appendix B

Table B3

1999 2004 2007 Total Sig.

Capstone contribution to development average 3.93 4.05 4.12 4.04 *Contribution to development: Managing a large project 4.00 4.18 4.31 4.17 **Contribution to development: Learning effectively on own 4.14 4.22 4.34 4.24 *Contribution to development: Ability to make an effective oral presentation 3.66 3.78 3.85 3.77 Contribution to development: Having confidence in abilities 3.90 4.04 4.16 4.04 *Contribution to development: Ability to think critically and analytically 4.13 4.25 4.23 4.21 Contribution to development: Ability to think creatively 3.86 3.99 4.06 3.97 Contribution to development: Ability to write effectively 4.13 4.24 4.22 4.20 Contribution to development: Skill in the interpreting of data, evidence, texts, and/or works 4.08 4.20 4.24 4.17

Contribution to development: Integrating ideas from multiple disciplines 3.63 3.73 3.83 3.73

Table B4

Contribution to Development - By Self-Reported Overall College GPAMean

B-/C+ or

below B B+ A- A Total Sig.

Capstone contribution to development average 3.67 3.90 4.12 4.17 4.11 4.04 ***Contribution to development: Managing a large project 3.64 4.06 4.24 4.33 4.27 4.17 ***Contribution to development: Learning effectively on own 3.95 4.03 4.31 4.34 4.39 4.24 ***Contribution to development: Ability to make an effective oral presentation 3.51 3.62 3.88 3.88 3.79 3.77 *Contribution to development: Having confidence in abilities 3.67 3.91 4.10 4.18 4.11 4.04 ***Contribution to development: Ability to think critically and analytically 3.84 4.08 4.30 4.33 4.26 4.20 ***Contribution to development: Ability to think creatively 3.66 3.84 4.10 4.09 4.01 3.97 **Contribution to development: Ability to write effectively 3.81 3.98 4.32 4.34 4.28 4.20 ***Contribution to development: Skill in the interpreting of data, evidence, texts, and/or works

3.78 4.06 4.22 4.31 4.26 4.17 ***

Contribution to development: Integrating ideas from multiple disciplines3.32 3.57 3.83 3.88 3.78 3.73

***

graduation cohort 1=1999, 2=2004, 3=2007,

Contribution to Development - By Graduation CohortMean

2 10/11/2010Part 7, Page: 39

Appendix B

Table B5Contribution to Development - By Primary Major of CapstoneMean

Teacher Education

Languages/Lit/Comm Humanities Natural

SciencesSocial

Sciences

Visual and Performing

ArtsBusiness Total Sig.

Capstone contribution to development average 4.28 4.00 4.11 4.02 4.06 4.05 3.85 4.04 Contribution to development: Managing a large project 4.38 4.20 4.10 4.12 4.21 4.30 4.06 4.18 Contribution to development: Learning effectively on own 4.32 4.21 4.19 4.22 4.25 4.46 4.16 4.24 Contribution to development: Ability to make an effective oral presentation 4.36 3.58 3.90 3.94 3.68 3.56 3.68 3.77 **Contribution to development: Having confidence in abilities 4.64 4.02 4.19 4.00 4.04 4.14 3.89 4.04 Contribution to development: Ability to think critically and analytically 4.14 4.15 4.29 4.24 4.21 4.17 4.17 4.21 Contribution to development: Ability to think creatively 4.55 4.26 4.14 3.81 3.95 4.25 3.39 3.98 ***Contribution to development: Ability to write effectively 4.00 4.32 4.33 4.09 4.26 4.03 4.16 4.20 Contribution to development: Skill in the interpreting of data, evidence, texts, and/or works 3.58 3.90 4.05 4.25 4.29 3.71 4.28 4.17 ***

Contribution to development: Integrating ideas from multiple disciplines 4.29 3.65 4.10 3.58 3.82 3.69 3.39 3.72 *

3 10/11/2010Part 7, Page: 40

Appendix C

Appendix Tables: Capstone Experiences Questions5 point scale: 1= strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree; Highest mean in each row bolded iff differences (by row) were statistically significant p<.05.Coloration is Excel 2007 conditional formatting green-yellow-red color scaling.

Table C1

Red Tan White Yellow Total Sig.

Capstone experiences rating average 4.09 3.62 3.67 3.75 3.82 ***Experience: More intellectually challenging 4.03 3.63 3.85 3.67 3.78 ***Experience: Developed more academically 3.89 3.32 3.29 3.43 3.54 ***Experience: Better understanding of skills, abilities, interests 4.16 3.71 3.61 3.84 3.90 ***Experience: Clarified my career or graduate school objectives 3.32 2.88 3.00 3.10 #N/AExperience: Feel better prepared for job or grad school 4.07 3.53 3.66 3.81 3.83 ***Experience: Positive influence on intellectual growth 4.30 3.86 4.02 3.97 4.05 ***Experience: Positive influence on personal growth. 4.07 3.70 3.58 3.79 3.84 ***

Table C2

Male Female Total Sig.

Capstone experiences rating average 3.75 3.87 3.83 *Experience: More intellectually challenging 3.75 3.80 3.78 Experience: Developed more academically 3.46 3.59 3.54 Experience: Better understanding of skills, abilities, interests 3.84 3.93 3.90 Experience: Clarified my career or graduate school objectives 2.99 3.17 3.10 *Experience: Feel better prepared for job or grad school 3.70 3.92 3.84 **Experience: Positive influence on intellectual growth 3.96 4.11 4.05 *Experience: Positive influence on personal growth. 3.76 3.89 3.84 *

Table C3

1999 2004 2007 Total Sig.

Capstone experiences rating average 3.69 3.86 3.91 3.82 **Experience: More intellectually challenging 3.59 3.85 3.89 3.78 ***Experience: Developed more academically 3.37 3.56 3.67 3.54 **Experience: Better understanding of skills, abilities, interests 3.76 3.94 3.98 3.90 **Experience: Clarified my career or graduate school objectives 2.99 3.10 3.20 3.10 Experience: Feel better prepared for job or grad school 3.75 3.89 3.85 3.83 Experience: Positive influence on intellectual growth 3.95 4.06 4.15 4.05 *Experience: Positive influence on personal growth. 3.73 3.85 3.94 3.84 *

Capstone Experiences - By Graduation Cohort

graduation cohort 1=1999, 2=2004, 3=2007,

Capstone Experiences - By College

school

Capstone Experiences - By Gender

Sex

4 10/11/2010Part 7, Page: 41

Appendix C

Table C4Capstone Experiences - By Self-Reported Overall College GPA

B-/C+ or

below B B+ A- A Total Sig.

Capstone experiences rating average 3.50 3.64 3.93 3.96 3.88 3.82 ***Experience: More intellectually challenging 3.68 3.58 3.84 3.90 3.78 3.78 **Experience: Developed more academically 3.27 3.35 3.66 3.65 3.57 3.54 **Experience: Better understanding of skills, abilities, interests 3.61 3.75 3.99 4.02 3.92 3.90 ***Experience: Clarified my career or graduate school objectives 2.71 2.85 3.14 3.37 3.15 3.10 ***Experience: Feel better prepared for job or grad school 3.35 3.60 3.92 4.03 3.96 3.83 ***Experience: Positive influence on intellectual growth 3.60 3.89 4.14 4.20 4.18 4.05 ***Experience: Positive influence on personal growth. 3.48 3.68 4.01 3.96 3.86 3.84 ***

Table C5Capstone Experiences - By Primary Major of Capstone

Teacher Education

Languages/Lit/Comm Humanities Natural

SciencesSocial

Sciences

Visual and Performain

g ArtsBusiness Total Sig.

Capstone experiences rating average 3.97 3.82 4.08 3.77 3.84 3.82 3.99 3.83 Experience: More intellectually challenging 3.55 3.81 4.00 3.67 3.84 3.81 4.06 3.78 Experience: Developed more academically 3.64 3.52 3.86 3.49 3.54 3.59 3.83 3.54 Experience: Better understanding of skills, abilities, interests 4.27 3.88 4.00 3.85 3.89 4.00 4.06 3.90 Experience: Clarified my career or graduate school objectives 5.00 2.94 3.00 3.19 3.05 3.26 3.08 3.10 Experience: Feel better prepared for job or grad school 4.19 3.62 4.05 3.92 3.85 3.57 3.94 3.84 Experience: Positive influence on intellectual growth 4.00 4.12 4.43 3.96 4.08 4.08 4.11 4.06 Experience: Positive influence on personal growth. 4.18 3.93 4.14 3.71 3.86 3.84 3.94 3.84

5 10/11/2010Part 7, Page: 42

Appendix D‐ GLM Models For Key Rating Items and Scales

Overall Capstone Experience ‐ GLM Model Overall Capstone Experience by School with Gollege GPA

intercept 3.397model coefficients for:

colgpa 0.727

Red Tan White Yellowh l 1 885 2 301 0 461 0

1 10/11/2010

school 1.885 2.301 0.461 0school*colgpa ‐0.473 ‐0.747 ‐0.187 0

Predicted Scores Actual Scores

colgpa Red Tan White Yellow colgpa Red Tan White Yellow Total2.00 5.79 5.66 4.94 4.85 2.00 5.33 6.00 7.00 4.40 5.002.50 5.92 5.65 5.21 5.21 2.50 6.28 5.27 4.43 5.08 5.303 00 6 04 5 64 5 48 5 58 3 00 5 89 5 89 5 56 5 65 5 713.00 6.04 5.64 5.48 5.58 3.00 5.89 5.89 5.56 5.65 5.713.33 6.13 5.63 5.66 5.82 3.33 6.08 5.62 6.00 5.95 5.993.67 6.21 5.62 5.84 6.07 3.67 6.22 5.74 5.82 6.09 6.114.00 6.30 5.62 6.02 6.31 4.00 6.34 5.51 5.80 6.11 6.19

Total 6.17 5.63 5.68 5.81 5.92Predictive Model: Scale 1= exceptionally poor to 7= exceptionally good

6.50

5 00

5.50

6.00

6.50

Red

Tan

White

GPA4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

6.50

2.00 2.50 3.00 3.33 3.67 4.00

Red

Tan

White

Yellow

Significant effects for school, colgpa, and school*colgpaSchool effects between Yellow and White were not signfificant.

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

6.50

2.00 2.50 3.00 3.33 3.67 4.00

Red

Tan

White

Yellow

1 10/11/2010

Part 7, Page: 43


Capstone Contribution to Development Average ‐ GLM Model by School with Gollege GPA

Average of 10 qustions relating to the capstone'sintercept 2.318 contribution to development

model coefficients for:colgpa 0.515


2 10/11/2010




Total 4.20 3.81 3.90 4.03 4.04Predictive Model: Scale: 1 to 5

3.60

3.80

4.00

4.20

4.40

4.60

Red

Tan

White

Yellow

GPASignificant effects for school, colgpa, and school*colgpaS h l ff b Y ll d Whi i fifi

3.00

3.20

3.40

3.60

3.80

4.00

4.20

4.40

4.60

2.00 2.50 3.00 3.33 3.67 4.00

Red

Tan

White

Yellow

School effects between Yellow and White were not signfificant.

2 10/11/2010

Part 7, Page: 44


Capstone Experience Rating Average ‐ GLM Model by School with Gollege GPA

Average of six strongly agree to strongly disagree intercept 2.375 questions about the capstone experience

model coefficients for:colgpa 0.415


3 10/11/2010




Total 4.09 3.62 3.67 3.75 3.82Predictive Model: Scale: 1 to 5

4.30

3.10

3.30

3.50

3.70

3.90

4.10

4.30

Red

Tan

White

Yellow

GPASignificant effects for school, colgpa, and school*colgpaS h l ff Y ll d Whi d T i fifi

2.50

2.70

2.90

3.10

3.30

3.50

3.70

3.90

4.10

4.30

2.00 2.50 3.00 3.33 3.67 4.00

Red

Tan

White

Yellow

School effects among Yellow and White and Tan were not signfificant.

3 10/11/2010

Part 7, Page: 45


Developed more academically from capstone than from regular course ‐ GLM Model Capstone28 by School with Gollege GPA


colgpa 0.425


4 10/11/2010



colgpa Red Tan White Yellow colgpa Red Tan White Yellow Total2.00 3.97 3.44 3.18 2.87 2.002.50 3.94 3.40 3.22 3.08 2.503 00 3 92 3 36 3 26 3 29 3 003.00 3.92 3.36 3.26 3.29 3.003.33 3.90 3.33 3.28 3.43 3.333.67 3.88 3.30 3.31 3.58 3.674.00 3.86 3.27 3.34 3.72 4.00

TotalPredictive Model:

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

Red

Tan

White

GPA

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

2.00 2.50 3.00 3.33 3.67 4.00

Red

Tan

White

Yellow

School and school*colgpa effects are significant

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

2.00 2.50 3.00 3.33 3.67 4.00

Red

Tan

White

Yellow

4 10/11/2010

Part 7, Page: 46


Capstone value vs additional course in the major ‐ GLM Model Capstone33 by School with Gollege GPA


colgpa 0.236


5 10/11/2010

school 0.57 ‐0.286 ‐1.087 0school*colgpa ‐0.105 0.032 0.301 0


colgpa Red Tan White Yellow colgpa Red Tan White Yellow Total2.00 2.39 1.80 1.54 2.03 2.002.50 2.45 1.94 1.81 2.14 2.503 00 2 52 2 07 2 08 2 26 3 003.00 2.52 2.07 2.08 2.26 3.003.33 2.56 2.16 2.25 2.34 3.333.67 2.60 2.25 2.44 2.42 3.674.00 2.65 2.34 2.61 2.50 4.00

TotalPredictive Model:

1.80

2.00

2.20

2.40

2.60

2.80

Red

Tan

White

GPA1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

2.20

2.40

2.60

2.80

2.00 2.50 3.00 3.33 3.67 4.00

Red

Tan

White

Yellow

Only significant effect is from colgp.Differences by school were not significant.School*colgpa not a significant effect.

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

2.20

2.40

2.60

2.80

2.00 2.50 3.00 3.33 3.67 4.00

Red

Tan

White

Yellow

5 10/11/2010

Part 7, Page: 47

[Type text]

Appendix E: Correlations of Overall Evaluations of the Capstone and Undergraduate Education with Other Survey Questions

The table in this appendix indicates the correlations of various capstone related questions on the alumni survey with some key evaluation questions relating to the capstone and their undergraduate education, namely:

Capstone14: Overall capstone experience CapstoneExperRating: Capstone experiences rating average CapstoneContrib: Capstone contribution to development average q7a Preparation: Post‐baccalaureate education q7b Preparation: Current career q4: Satisfaction with undergraduate education q5: Would encourage others to attend

The table is intended as a reference for questions that may arise about interrelationships among the responses. It is exploratory in nature, and it should be kept in mind that correlations may show associations that are not causative. The statistical significance of the correlations relates to the probability that the true correlation is non‐zero. Given the large number of tests for significance, some false positives are likely to occur, so judgments should also be made about reasonableness of the results. Of particular interest are things that might differentiate alumni who had the best capstone experience from those with poorer experiences.

The “Overall Evaluation of the Capstone” section relates the seven key questions mentioned above to each other, and it seems reasonable and favorable that all the inter‐correlations are positive with moderate to high values. In a coherent package, having a good capstone experience is positively related to the capstone contributing to development, feeling well prepared for graduate school or the current career, satisfaction with one’s undergraduate education and encouraging others to attend the same college.

The “Importance in Current Activities” and “Extent Enhanced by Undergraduate Experience” sections indicate that higher capstone ratings are most highly associated with higher life‐long learning interests, including formulating ideas, gaining knowledge, and a desire for continued learning. It would be interesting to know how much of this is caused by the capstone experience as opposed to a predisposition toward life‐long learning that might precede the capstone.

The “Satisfaction with College Experiences” section shows higher capstone ratings have a strong positive correlation with satisfaction with independent study/research, as might be expected, but also with most of the academic program areas. In contrast, as might also be expect if students are giving valid responses, the correlations with most college services (financial, recreation/athletics, residential life, campus safety) are not significant.

A question pertinent to our research agenda is whether students who have the better capstone experiences tended to give up involvement with co‐curricular activities such as student government, performing arts/music or athletics. The “Level of Involvement” section of the table shows the correlations are generally small and not statistically significant. Even the statistically significant

Part 7, Page: 48

[Type text]

correlations were quite small: ‐0.087 with fraternity/sorority participation, +0.071 with internships, and ‐0.099 with off‐campus employment. Similarly the contribution of development that alumni attribute to various co‐curricular activities does not appear to negatively correlated with having a better capstone experience. The question of whether capstones may force a trade off with other co‐curricular activities would be better addressed with direct questions, but these correlations at least do not seem to raise any red flags.

Part 7, Page: 49

Appendix E

Correlations with Key Questions ‐ Color scaling is within topic blocks. Asterisks indicate statistical significance, 2‐

tailed. [1]

Capstone14 Overall

capstone experience

Sig. (2-

tailed)

CapstoneExperRating


rating average

Sig. (2-

tailed)

CapstoneContrib


to developmen

t average

Sig. (2-

tailed)

q7a Preparation:

Post-baccalaureate education

Sig. (2-

tailed)

q7b Preparation: Current

career

Sig. (2-

tailed)

q4 Satisfaction

with undergradu

ate education

Sig. (2-

tailed)

q5 Would encourage others to

attend

cap overall cap exp avg cont dev gsch prep job prep sat educ oth attnd

Correlations Overall Evaluation of the Capstone cap overall cap exp avg cont dev gsch prep job prep sat educ oth attndCapstone14 Overall capstone experience 1.000 *** 0.654 *** 0.630 *** 0.288 *** 0.271 *** 0.339 *** 0.293 ***CapstoneExperRating Capstone experiences rating average 0.654 *** 1.000 *** 0.788 *** 0.349 *** 0.352 *** 0.391 *** 0.309 ***CapstoneContrib Capstone contribution to development av 0.630 *** 0.788 *** 1.000 *** 0.285 *** 0.360 *** 0.376 *** 0.290 ***q7a Preparation: Post‐baccalaureate education 0.288 *** 0.349 *** 0.285 *** 1.000 *** 0.424 *** 0.380 *** 0.329 ***q7b Preparation: Current career 0.271 *** 0.352 *** 0.360 *** 0.424 *** 1.000 *** 0.437 *** 0.407 ***q4 Satisfaction with undergraduate education 0.339 *** 0.391 *** 0.376 *** 0.380 *** 0.437 *** 1.000 *** 0.632 ***q5 Would encourage others to attend 0.293 *** 0.309 *** 0.290 *** 0.329 *** 0.407 *** 0.632 *** 1.000 ***Importance in Current Activities cap overall cap exp avg cont dev gsch prep job prep sat educ oth attndq1a1 Importance: Acquire new skills 0.120 *** 0.138 *** 0.171 *** 0.117 *** 0.159 *** 0.164 *** 0.092 **q1a2 Importance: Think analytically 0.091 ** 0.138 *** 0.152 *** 0.198 *** 0.187 *** 0.160 *** 0.135 ***q1a3 Importance: Formulate ideas 0.194 *** 0.271 *** 0.287 *** 0.142 *** 0.193 *** 0.163 *** 0.161 ***q1a4 Importance: Academic ability 0.178 *** 0.226 *** 0.251 *** 0.248 *** 0.230 *** 0.246 *** 0.201 ***q1a5 Importance: Write effectively 0.136 *** 0.217 *** 0.254 *** 0.189 *** 0.149 *** 0.125 *** 0.092 **q1a6 Importance: Use quant tools 0.072 * 0.078 * 0.166 *** 0.086 ** 0.144 *** 0.151 *** 0.105 **q1a7 Importance: Appreciate arts 0.080 * 0.213 *** 0.218 *** 0.113 *** 0.092 ** 0.152 *** 0.116 ***q1a8 Importance: Gain knowledge 0.205 *** 0.190 *** 0.188 *** 0.221 *** 0.247 *** 0.174 *** 0.145 ***q1a9 Importance: Speak foreign language 0.069 * 0.154 *** 0.133 *** 0.057 0.054 0.060 0.016 q1a10 Importance: Societal awareness 0.070 * 0.195 *** 0.175 *** 0.133 *** 0.137 *** 0.159 *** 0.081 *q1a11 Importance: Place probs in perspective 0.059 0.211 *** 0.186 *** 0.109 ** 0.177 *** 0.147 *** 0.070 *q1a12 Importance: Understand moral issues 0.075 * 0.143 *** 0.145 *** 0.145 *** 0.146 *** 0.178 *** 0.099 **q1a13 Importance: Self‐understanding 0.091 ** 0.186 *** 0.226 *** 0.141 *** 0.179 *** 0.180 *** 0.142 ***q1a14 Importance: Function independently 0.151 *** 0.191 *** 0.226 *** 0.058 0.166 *** 0.131 *** 0.102 **q1a15 Importance: Develop self‐esteem 0.132 *** 0.203 *** 0.248 *** 0.091 ** 0.153 *** 0.174 *** 0.149 ***q1a16 Importance: Establish course of action 0.139 *** 0.177 *** 0.196 *** 0.146 *** 0.157 *** 0.204 *** 0.131 ***q1a17 Importance: Intellectual self‐confidence 0.172 *** 0.201 *** 0.232 *** 0.123 *** 0.204 *** 0.187 *** 0.151 ***q1a18 Importance: Desire for continued learning 0.222 *** 0.253 *** 0.259 *** 0.226 *** 0.168 *** 0.193 *** 0.186 ***q1a19 Importance: Lead and supervise 0.095 ** 0.132 *** 0.187 *** 0.129 *** 0.172 *** 0.145 *** 0.082 *q1a20 Importance: Relate well to others 0.050 0.117 *** 0.182 *** 0.115 *** 0.165 *** 0.177 *** 0.162 ***q1a21 Importance: Function as member of team 0.041 0.086 * 0.156 *** 0.066 * 0.123 *** 0.107 ** 0.103 **q1a22 Importance: Communicate orally 0.103 ** 0.127 *** 0.187 *** 0.108 ** 0.126 *** 0.142 *** 0.124 ***q1a23 Importance: Understand others 0.087 * 0.122 *** 0.186 *** 0.088 ** 0.143 *** 0.132 *** 0.121 ***q1a24 Importance: Understand scientific process 0.115 *** 0.131 *** 0.168 *** 0.171 *** 0.196 *** 0.159 *** 0.072 *q1a25 Importance: Use technology ‐0.042 0.016 0.085 * 0.072 * 0.134 *** 0.056 0.056

1 10/11/2010Part 7, Page: 50

Appendix E


Extent Enhanced by Undergraduate Experience cap overall cap exp avg cont dev gsch prep job prep sat educ oth attndq1b1 Enhanced: Acquire new skills 0.294 *** 0.360 *** 0.388 *** 0.302 *** 0.400 *** 0.425 *** 0.367 ***q1b2 Enhanced: Think analytically 0.250 *** 0.304 *** 0.352 *** 0.264 *** 0.380 *** 0.332 *** 0.253 ***q1b3 Enhanced: Formulate ideas 0.315 *** 0.359 *** 0.392 *** 0.230 *** 0.357 *** 0.316 *** 0.273 ***q1b4 Enhanced: Academic ability 0.285 *** 0.307 *** 0.333 *** 0.275 *** 0.333 *** 0.384 *** 0.344 ***

q1b5 Enhanced: Write effectively 0.200 *** 0.235 *** 0.311 *** 0.239 *** 0.222 *** 0.248 *** 0.159 ***

q1b6 Enhanced: Use quant tools 0.110 ** 0.162 *** 0.264 *** 0.157 *** 0.264 *** 0.264 *** 0.216 ***q1b7 Enhanced: Appreciate arts 0.105 ** 0.208 *** 0.216 *** 0.125 *** 0.146 *** 0.195 *** 0.212 ***q1b8 Enhanced: Gain knowledge 0.293 *** 0.342 *** 0.354 *** 0.286 *** 0.334 *** 0.359 *** 0.279 ***q1b9 Enhanced: Speak foreign language 0.085 * 0.130 *** 0.119 *** 0.089 ** 0.071 * 0.076 * 0.064 q1b10 Enhanced: Societal awareness 0.101 ** 0.210 *** 0.210 *** 0.166 *** 0.200 *** 0.254 *** 0.206 ***q1b11 Enhanced: Place probs in perspective 0.128 *** 0.236 *** 0.237 *** 0.157 *** 0.242 *** 0.286 *** 0.206 ***q1b12 Enhanced: Understand moral issues 0.103 ** 0.219 *** 0.250 *** 0.204 *** 0.298 *** 0.302 *** 0.255 ***q1b13 Enhanced: Self‐understanding 0.155 *** 0.202 *** 0.273 *** 0.187 *** 0.239 *** 0.336 *** 0.299 ***q1b14 Enhanced: Function independently 0.229 *** 0.252 *** 0.305 *** 0.178 *** 0.287 *** 0.281 *** 0.245 ***q1b15 Enhanced: Develop self‐esteem 0.211 *** 0.258 *** 0.342 *** 0.193 *** 0.274 *** 0.370 *** 0.323 ***q1b16 Enhanced: Establish course of action 0.239 *** 0.288 *** 0.366 *** 0.261 *** 0.315 *** 0.368 *** 0.329 ***q1b17 Enhanced: Intellectual self‐confidence 0.214 *** 0.255 *** 0.332 *** 0.245 *** 0.311 *** 0.385 *** 0.352 ***q1b18 Enhanced: Desire for continued learning 0.303 *** 0.336 *** 0.378 *** 0.407 *** 0.322 *** 0.372 *** 0.380 ***q1b19 Enhanced: Lead and supervise 0.141 *** 0.213 *** 0.288 *** 0.140 *** 0.270 *** 0.246 *** 0.208 ***q1b20 Enhanced: Relate well to others 0.119 *** 0.205 *** 0.291 *** 0.131 *** 0.211 *** 0.244 *** 0.224 ***q1b21 Enhanced: Function as member of team 0.103 ** 0.207 *** 0.292 *** 0.137 *** 0.251 *** 0.258 *** 0.218 ***q1b22 Enhanced: Communicate orally 0.113 ** 0.194 *** 0.325 *** 0.173 *** 0.249 *** 0.280 *** 0.241 ***q1b23 Enhanced: Understand others 0.112 ** 0.212 *** 0.297 *** 0.192 *** 0.297 *** 0.263 *** 0.261 ***q1b24 Enhanced: Understand scientific process 0.132 *** 0.186 *** 0.231 *** 0.216 *** 0.203 *** 0.213 *** 0.162 ***q1b25 Enhanced: Use technology 0.055 0.152 *** 0.229 *** 0.147 *** 0.251 *** 0.226 *** 0.183 ***Satisfaction with College Experiences cap overall cap exp avg cont dev gsch prep job prep sat educ oth attndq2a Satisfaction: Academic advising 0.348 *** 0.349 *** 0.339 *** 0.218 *** 0.264 *** 0.376 *** 0.313 ***q2b Satisfaction: Contact with faculty 0.318 *** 0.255 *** 0.237 *** 0.210 *** 0.180 *** 0.299 *** 0.247 ***q2c Satisfaction: Quality of teaching 0.187 *** 0.157 *** 0.201 *** 0.218 *** 0.235 *** 0.353 *** 0.356 ***q2d Satisfaction: Courses in major field 0.188 *** 0.188 *** 0.225 *** 0.226 *** 0.230 *** 0.333 *** 0.274 ***q2e Satisfaction: Courses outside major field 0.113 ** 0.203 *** 0.204 *** 0.176 *** 0.165 *** 0.266 *** 0.243 ***q2f Satisfaction: Independent study/research 0.505 *** 0.450 *** 0.434 *** 0.280 *** 0.237 *** 0.358 *** 0.292 ***q2g Satisfaction: Career services 0.146 *** 0.168 *** 0.164 *** 0.160 *** 0.280 *** 0.287 *** 0.299 ***q2h Satisfaction: Financial services 0.043 0.117 ** 0.120 ** 0.129 *** 0.156 *** 0.225 *** 0.226 ***q2i Satisfaction: Library resources 0.062 0.091 ** 0.099 ** 0.049 0.063 0.116 *** 0.143 ***q2j Satisfaction: Recreation/athletics 0.029 0.013 0.056 ‐0.017 0.083 * 0.111 ** 0.151 ***q2k Satisfaction: Residential life 0.006 0.076 * 0.080 * 0.077 * 0.067 * 0.187 *** 0.190 ***q2l Satisfaction: Student voice in policies 0.199 *** 0.212 *** 0.232 *** 0.165 *** 0.192 *** 0.265 *** 0.266 ***q2m Satisfaction: Campus safety 0.045 0.097 ** 0.105 ** 0.081 * 0.099 ** 0.131 *** 0.097 **

2 10/11/2010Part 7, Page: 51

Appendix E


q2n Satisfaction: Sense of belonging 0.146 *** 0.205 *** 0.249 *** 0.136 *** 0.159 *** 0.393 *** 0.399 ***q2o Satisfaction: Ethnic/racial diversity 0.024 0.080 * 0.117 *** 0.027 0.111 ** 0.161 *** 0.161 ***q2p Satisfaction: Social life on campus 0.090 ** 0.125 *** 0.172 *** 0.093 ** 0.186 *** 0.292 *** 0.340 ***q3a Expectations: Enhance intellectual growth 0.293 *** 0.350 *** 0.365 *** 0.352 *** 0.413 *** 0.478 *** 0.467 ***q3b Expectations: Acquire knowledge of a field 0.285 *** 0.343 *** 0.347 *** 0.316 *** 0.411 *** 0.426 *** 0.387 ***q3c Expectations: Develop competency in skills 0.261 *** 0.333 *** 0.348 *** 0.357 *** 0.548 *** 0.416 *** 0.342 ***q3d Expectations: Foster personal growth 0.194 *** 0.264 *** 0.331 *** 0.267 *** 0.341 *** 0.455 *** 0.440 ***q3e Expectations: Promote ability to form relationships 0.180 *** 0.265 *** 0.321 *** 0.224 *** 0.275 *** 0.384 *** 0.381 ***Level of Involvement cap overall cap exp avg cont dev gsch prep job prep sat educ oth attndq6a1 Involvement: Student government 0.028 0.024 0.009 0.025 0.030 0.048 0.031 q6a2 Involvement: Intercollegiate athletics ‐0.039 ‐0.065 ‐0.057 ‐0.058 ‐0.066 * ‐0.039 ‐0.012 q6a3 Involvement: Intramural sports ‐0.020 0.020 0.047 ‐0.059 ‐0.021 ‐0.027 ‐0.010 q6a4 Involvement: Student publications 0.022 0.052 0.037 ‐0.003 0.009 ‐0.020 ‐0.068 *q6a5 Involvement: Performing arts/music 0.053 0.117 *** 0.079 * 0.065 0.062 0.052 0.036 q6a6 Involvement: Political organization ‐0.010 0.056 0.039 0.052 ‐0.001 0.010 ‐0.020 q6a7 Involvement: Community service 0.045 0.101 ** 0.127 *** 0.068 * 0.085 * 0.111 *** 0.064 q6a8 Involvement: Fraternity/sorority ‐0.087 * ‐0.091 ** ‐0.030 ‐0.067 * 0.006 0.023 0.036 q6a9 Involvement: Religious group 0.027 0.020 0.023 0.077 * 0.052 0.070 * 0.074 *q6a10 Involvement: Internships 0.071 * 0.099 ** 0.101 ** 0.093 ** 0.127 *** 0.068 * 0.021 q6a11 Involvement: Study abroad 0.023 0.107 ** 0.021 0.057 ‐0.014 0.053 0.042 q6a12 Involvement: Faculty research 0.160 *** 0.178 *** 0.148 *** 0.160 *** 0.092 ** 0.094 ** 0.048 q6a13 Involvement: Independent study 0.258 *** 0.287 *** 0.230 *** 0.184 *** 0.085 * 0.109 ** 0.092 **q6a14 Involvement: On‐campus employment 0.036 0.029 0.006 0.068 * 0.060 0.016 0.036 q6a15 Involvement: Off‐campus employment ‐0.099 ** ‐0.058 ‐0.084 * ‐0.073 * ‐0.006 ‐0.055 ‐0.079 *Contribution to Your Development cap overall cap exp avg cont dev gsch prep job prep sat educ oth attndq6b1 Contribution: Student government 0.098 0.096 0.118 0.173 ** 0.152 * 0.146 * 0.100 q6b2 Contribution: Intercollegiate athletics 0.040 0.071 0.041 0.160 ** 0.155 ** 0.128 * 0.094 q6b3 Contribution: Intramural sports 0.111 * 0.165 *** 0.170 *** 0.003 0.088 0.090 0.049 q6b4 Contribution: Student publications ‐0.015 0.051 0.016 ‐0.062 0.015 0.053 ‐0.048 q6b5 Contribution: Performing arts/music ‐0.048 0.016 0.011 0.017 0.022 ‐0.011 0.020 q6b6 Contribution: Political organization 0.176 ** 0.188 *** 0.215 *** 0.213 *** 0.191 *** 0.174 ** 0.071 q6b7 Contribution: Community service 0.108 ** 0.114 ** 0.126 ** 0.156 *** 0.122 ** 0.166 *** 0.125 ***q6b8 Contribution: Fraternity/sorority 0.063 0.016 0.062 0.073 0.119 * 0.080 0.091 q6b9 Contribution: Religious group 0.077 0.065 0.059 0.114 0.027 0.125 * 0.130 *q6b10 Contribution: Internships 0.087 0.131 ** 0.096 * 0.163 *** 0.211 *** 0.085 0.038 q6b11 Contribution: Study abroad 0.070 0.083 0.044 0.083 0.155 ** 0.076 ‐0.023 q6b12 Contribution: Faculty research 0.231 *** 0.299 *** 0.240 *** 0.174 ** 0.094 0.048 ‐0.001 q6b13 Contribution: Independent study 0.398 *** 0.452 *** 0.387 *** 0.324 *** 0.246 *** 0.244 *** 0.190 ***q6b14 Contribution: On‐campus employment 0.119 ** 0.219 *** 0.218 *** 0.183 *** 0.205 *** 0.120 ** 0.061 q6b15 Contribution: Off‐campus employment ‐0.014 0.064 0.028 ‐0.037 0.098 ‐0.033 ‐0.002

3 10/11/2010Part 7, Page: 52

Appendix E


Misc. Preparation cap overall cap exp avg cont dev gsch prep job prep sat educ oth attndq7c Preparation: Social and civic involvement 0.172 *** 0.247 *** 0.251 *** 0.315 *** 0.388 *** 0.343 *** 0.311 ***q7d Preparation: Interpersonal relationships 0.158 *** 0.234 *** 0.293 *** 0.269 *** 0.303 *** 0.351 *** 0.352 ***Alumni Continuing Involvement with Alma Mater cap overall cap exp avg cont dev gsch prep job prep sat educ oth attnd

q8a Continuing Involvement: Read campus publications0.126 *** 0.115 *** 0.100 ** 0.138 *** 0.175 *** 0.196 *** 0.206 ***

q8b Continuing Involvement: Visited the institution's Web site

0.142 *** 0.185 *** 0.200 *** 0.143 *** 0.185 *** 0.204 *** 0.250 ***

q8c Continuing Involvement: Visited campus for any purpose

0.071 * 0.099 ** 0.124 *** 0.119 *** 0.156 *** 0.150 *** 0.166 ***

q8d Continuing Involvement: Attended alumni functions on campus

0.093 ** 0.071 * 0.143 *** 0.049 0.113 *** 0.136 *** 0.146 ***

q8e Continuing Involvement: Attended alumni functions off campus

0.079 * 0.056 0.101 ** 0.059 0.073 * 0.103 ** 0.116 ***

q8f Continuing Involvement: Attended alma mater sporting events

0.053 0.029 0.092 ** 0.009 0.065 0.075 * 0.126 ***

q8g Continuing Involvement: Served as an alumni admissions volunteer

0.089 * 0.084 * 0.086 * 0.079 * 0.078 * 0.060 0.078 *

q8h Continuing Involvement: Participated in a career advisory program

0.099 ** 0.075 * 0.091 ** 0.053 0.094 ** 0.067 * 0.043

q8i Continuing Involvement: Participated in alumni continuing education program

0.044 0.025 0.068 0.002 0.003 ‐0.041 0.014

q8j Continuing Involvement: Participated in alumni community service program

0.056 0.060 0.040 0.031 0.030 0.015 0.050

q8k Continuing Involvement: Contributed or solicited for the annual fund

0.010 0.046 0.085 * 0.143 *** 0.158 *** 0.168 *** 0.169 ***

q8l Continuing Involvement: Maintained contact with other alumni

0.069 * 0.132 *** 0.131 *** 0.063 0.120 *** 0.200 *** 0.192 ***

q8m Continuing Involvement: Maintained contact with faculty members

0.250 *** 0.267 *** 0.252 *** 0.187 *** 0.218 *** 0.172 *** 0.102 **

q8n Continuing Involvement: Maintained contact with administrators

0.088 * 0.114 *** 0.146 *** 0.087 ** 0.135 *** 0.137 *** 0.113 ***

q9 Identification with your alma mater 0.238 *** 0.268 *** 0.292 *** 0.331 *** 0.376 *** 0.487 *** 0.549 ***Misc ‐ grades/honors/financial aid cap overall cap exp avg cont dev gsch prep job prep sat educ oth attnd

q17 Relevance of undergraduate major to current career0.186 *** 0.200 *** 0.131 *** 0.269 *** 0.443 *** 0.191 *** 0.178 ***

q18 Overall grade received as undergrad ‐0.206 *** ‐0.185 *** ‐0.163 *** ‐0.269 *** ‐0.201 *** ‐0.153 *** ‐0.173 *** (note scale: A=1 to 6=C or below)

q19a Awarded: Latin honors 0.154 *** 0.105 ** 0.097 ** 0.190 *** 0.138 *** 0.094 ** 0.086 **q19b Awarded: Phi Beta Kappa 0.087 * 0.035 0.047 0.124 *** 0.149 *** 0.065 0.071 *q19c Awarded: Sigma Xi 0.071 * 0.051 0.025 ‐0.035 0.006 ‐0.002 ‐0.012

4 10/11/2010Part 7, Page: 53

Appendix E


q19d Awarded: Honors in major 0.274 *** 0.261 *** 0.218 *** 0.190 *** 0.147 *** 0.115 *** 0.097 **q20 Financial Aid recipient 0.019 0.047 0.054 ‐0.047 ‐0.022 ‐0.016 ‐0.022 q20a Received: Merit award 0.044 0.025 ‐0.005 0.141 *** 0.094 ** 0.079 * 0.139 ***q20b Received: Need‐based grant ‐0.013 ‐0.068 * ‐0.087 * ‐0.068 * ‐0.070 * ‐0.085 * 0.011 q20c Received: Loan ‐0.090 ** ‐0.094 ** ‐0.118 *** ‐0.030 ‐0.035 ‐0.069 * ‐0.007 q20d Received: Work study ‐0.025 ‐0.075 * ‐0.095 ** ‐0.028 ‐0.059 ‐0.067 * ‐0.017 q21 Total amount of undergraduate loans ‐0.052 ‐0.080 * ‐0.066 ‐0.063 ‐0.033 ‐0.079 * ‐0.035 q22a Attend an unaffordable institution 0.048 0.045 0.070 * 0.053 0.069 * 0.098 ** 0.054 q22b Focus job search on higher paying fields 0.063 0.077 * 0.131 *** 0.002 0.043 0.073 * 0.037 q22c Postponed or canceled further education 0.010 0.014 0.058 ‐0.064 0.020 0.028 ‐0.011 q22d Made sacrifices in my personal budget because of student loan payments 0.028 0.032 0.047 0.001 ‐0.027 0.015 ‐0.022

Capstone Experiences cap overall cap exp avg cont dev gsch prep job prep sat educ oth attndCapgrade Reported cap grade 0.481 *** 0.361 *** 0.360 *** 0.253 *** 0.200 *** 0.191 *** 0.155 ***Capstone16 Contribution to development: Managing a large project

0.496 *** 0.546 *** 0.657 *** 0.258 *** 0.249 *** 0.264 *** 0.242 ***

Capstone17 Contribution to development: Learning effectively on own

0.518 *** 0.620 *** 0.792 *** 0.241 *** 0.270 *** 0.293 *** 0.235 ***

Capstone18 Contribution to development: Ability to make an effective oral presentation

0.410 *** 0.462 *** 0.725 *** 0.229 *** 0.279 *** 0.260 *** 0.214 ***

Capstone19 Contribution to development: Having confidence in abilities

0.570 *** 0.633 *** 0.836 *** 0.229 *** 0.317 *** 0.322 *** 0.236 ***

Capstone20 Contribution to development: Ability to think critically and analytically

0.557 *** 0.633 *** 0.843 *** 0.272 *** 0.349 *** 0.337 *** 0.277 ***

Capstone21 Contribution to development: Ability to think creatively

0.529 *** 0.607 *** 0.785 *** 0.214 *** 0.292 *** 0.336 *** 0.282 ***

Capstone22 Contribution to development: Ability to write effectively

0.507 *** 0.571 *** 0.726 *** 0.271 *** 0.267 *** 0.319 *** 0.270 ***

Capstone23 Contribution to development:Skill in the interpreting of data, evidence, texts, and/or works

0.462 *** 0.523 *** 0.744 *** 0.219 *** 0.210 *** 0.263 *** 0.186 ***

Capstone24 Contribution to development:Integrating ideas from multiple disciplines

0.387 *** 0.612 *** 0.708 *** 0.228 *** 0.284 *** 0.266 *** 0.196 ***

Capstone25 Contribution to development:Working collaboratively

0.414 *** 0.686 *** 0.622 *** 0.120 *** 0.183 *** 0.215 *** 0.159 ***

Capstone27 Experience: More intellectually challenging0.494 *** 0.752 *** 0.524 *** 0.250 *** 0.187 *** 0.246 *** 0.196 ***

Capstone28 Experience: Developed more academically0.560 *** 0.806 *** 0.629 *** 0.225 *** 0.198 *** 0.251 *** 0.192 ***

Capstone29 Experience: Better understanding of skills, abilities, interests

0.379 *** 0.649 *** 0.391 *** 0.261 *** 0.235 *** 0.233 *** 0.203 ***

5 10/11/2010Part 7, Page: 54

Appendix E


Capstone30 Experience: Feel better prepared for job or grad school

0.509 *** 0.779 *** 0.550 *** 0.365 *** 0.373 *** 0.377 *** 0.300 ***

Capstone31 Experience: Positive influence on intellectual growth

0.610 *** 0.824 *** 0.616 *** 0.302 *** 0.308 *** 0.362 *** 0.284 ***

Capstone32 Experience: Positive influence on personal growth.

0.533 *** 0.782 *** 0.593 *** 0.280 *** 0.295 *** 0.365 *** 0.285 ***

Capstone33 Compared value: Additional courses in major0.440 *** 0.530 *** 0.433 *** 0.150 *** 0.118 *** 0.182 *** 0.148 ***

Capstone34 Compared value: Additional courses outside of major

0.387 *** 0.433 *** 0.325 *** 0.171 *** 0.211 *** 0.185 *** 0.155 ***

Capstone35 Compared value: Participating in co‐curricular activities

0.308 *** 0.297 *** 0.236 *** 0.141 *** 0.166 *** 0.134 *** 0.124 ***

[1] Significance is as computed by the SPSS Correlations procedure for the hypothesis that the Pearson correlation is non‐zero, two‐tailed.

6 10/11/2010Part 7, Page: 55

Appendix F ‐ Comparisons of Result Means By Academic Division

Do alumni perceptions of the capstone vary by the academic division of the capstone?

The comments below are base on the data from schools Red, White and Yellow only (excluding Tan), and the divisions of the capstone discipline are denoted by:

Hum = humanities, literature, languages, and artsNS = natural sciencesSS= social sciences.

Based on the means and statistical significance at p<=0.05:

The ratings of the “overall capstone experience” were not statistically significant by division. This result and the overall average rating of 5.93 shows a general agreement across all divisions by most alumni that the capstone was a very good or excellent experience.

The capstone’s contributions to development were rated differently for a few areas:

• Ability to make an effective oral presentation was rated higher by the NS alumni. • Ability to think creatively was rated higher by Hum alumni.• Ability to write effectively was rated lower by NS alumni.• Skill in the interpreting of data, evidence, texts, and/or works was rated lower by Hum alumni• Integrating ideas from multiple disciplines was rated lower by NS alumni

Most of these results might arguably reflect the natures of the various disciplines and might have been expected. However, does the lower rating by NS alumni for writing development reflect shorter papers or different expectations for writing in the natural sciences? Does the higher rating by NS alumni for development of effect oral presentation skills indicate that oral presentations are a rarer event for those majors prior to the capstone? If so, should more oral presentation opportunities be incorporated in the pre‐capstone NS courses?

There was no statistical difference among the divisions in opinions about whether the capstone was more/or less valuable than taking an additional course in or outside of the major or participating in co‐curricular activities.

In summary, alumni perceptions of the capstone support the notion of a universal requirement in that the experience can be successful and of developmental value for students in all disciplines.

1 2/22/2012Part 7, Page: 56

Alumni Survey ‐ Means by School and Division of the Capstone

Table F1Capstone14 Overall capstone experienceCapDivGrp academic division of capstone school Mean N

Std. Deviation Mean

24 Humanities/art/lit Red 6.18 62 .933 6.18

White 6.11 9 .782 6.11

Yellow 5.85 78 1.207 5.85

Hum Total 6.00 149 1.084 6.00

40 Natural Sciences Red 6.00 67 1.115 6.00

White 5.50 8 .756 5.50

Yellow 5.81 153 1.011 5.81

NS Total 5.86 228 1.037 5.86

45 Social Sciences Red 6.31 105 .812 6.31

White 5.70 33 1.185 5.70

Yellow 5.79 177 1.064 5.79

SS Total 5.96 315 1.030 5.96

Total Red 6.19 234 .944 6.19

White 5.74 50 1.065 5.74

Yellow 5.81 408 1.071 5.81

All Total 5.93 692 1.044 5.93

Color scale highlighting is within each column.

Restatement of above data for the composite data from all schools:Hum Total 6.00 149 1.084 6.00

NS Total 5.86 228 1.037 5.86

SS Total 5.96 315 1.030 5.96

All Total 5.93 692 1.044 5.93

Sig: 0.364

No significant differences by division.

Part 7, Page: 57

Alumni Survey ‐ Means by School and Division of the Capstone

Table F2

CapDivGrp academic division of capstone school

Capstone16 Contribution to development: Managing a large project

Capstone17 Contribution to development:

Learning effectively on

own

Capstone18 Contribution to development: Ability to make

an effective oral

presentation

Capstone19 Contribution to development:

Having confidence in

abilities

Capstone20 Contribution to development: Ability to think critically and analytically

Capstone21 Contribution to development: Ability to think

creatively

Capstone22 Contribution to development: Ability to write

effectively

Capstone23 Contribution to development:S

kill in the interpreting of

data, evidence,

texts, and/or works

Capstone24 Contribution to development:I

ntegrating ideas from

multiple disciplines

24 Humanities/art/lit Red 4.50 4.57 3.64 4.34 4.35 4.43 4.46 4.05 3.97White 4.33 4.20 2.83 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.56 3.67 4.00Yellow 4.28 4.20 3.79 4.03 4.20 4.33 4.30 3.86 3.68

Hum Total 4.37 4.35 3.69 4.16 4.25 4.36 4.38 3.93 3.8140 Natural Sciences Red 4.36 4.33 4.00 4.24 4.34 3.95 4.27 4.32 3.49

White 3.38 3.50 3.00 3.13 3.63 2.88 3.75 3.63 3.00Yellow 4.09 4.20 3.95 3.93 4.24 3.78 4.07 4.27 3.65

NS Total 4.15 4.21 3.94 4.00 4.25 3.80 4.12 4.26 3.5845 Social Sciences Red 4.54 4.53 3.52 4.20 4.43 4.25 4.53 4.47 3.99

White 4.06 4.19 3.76 4.06 4.22 4.00 4.56 4.55 3.94Yellow 4.19 4.23 3.77 4.05 4.18 3.83 4.11 4.23 3.73

SS Total 4.30 4.32 3.68 4.10 4.27 3.99 4.30 4.34 3.84Total Red 4.48 4.48 3.69 4.25 4.38 4.21 4.44 4.32 3.84

White 4.00 4.08 3.47 3.92 4.10 3.84 4.43 4.23 3.79Yellow 4.17 4.21 3.84 4.00 4.21 3.91 4.13 4.17 3.69

All Total 4.26 4.29 3.77 4.08 4.26 4.00 4.26 4.23 3.75


Restatement of above data for the composite data from all schools:Hum Total 4.37 4.35 3.69 4.16 4.25 4.36 4.38 3.93 3.81

NS Total 4.15 4.21 3.94 4.00 4.25 3.80 4.12 4.26 3.58

SS Total 4.30 4.32 3.68 4.10 4.27 3.99 4.30 4.34 3.84

All Total 4.26 4.29 3.77 4.08 4.26 4.00 4.26 4.23 3.75Sig: 0.066 0.216 0.011 0.245 0.968 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.025

* *** ** *** *NS Hum/arts NS Hum/art NS

higher higher lower lower lower

Part 7, Page: 58

Alumni Survey ‐ Means by School and Division of the CapstoneTable F3


Capstone27 Experience:

More intellectually challenging

Capstone28 Experience: Developed

more academically


Better understanding of skills, abilities,

interests

clarify Experience: Clarified my

career or graduate school

objectives

Capstone30 Experience: Feel better

prepared for job or grad

school


Positive influence on intellectual

growth


Positive influence on

personal growth.

24 Humanities/art/lit Red 4.13 3.95 4.23 3.03 3.95 4.35 4.19White 3.80 3.40 3.90 2.90 3.40 4.30 3.60Yellow 3.72 3.42 3.87 2.99 3.71 4.05 3.92

Hum Total 3.89 3.64 4.02 3.00 3.79 4.19 4.0140 Natural Sciences Red 3.79 3.73 3.94 3.39 4.08 4.06 3.74

White 3.50 3.13 3.13 2.50 3.63 3.75 3.38Yellow 3.67 3.40 3.84 3.14 3.86 3.90 3.73

NS Total 3.70 3.49 3.84 3.19 3.91 3.94 3.7245 Social Sciences Red 4.10 3.95 4.25 3.40 4.15 4.42 4.18

White 3.97 3.24 3.61 3.00 3.79 4.13 3.70Yellow 3.64 3.45 3.81 2.86 3.82 3.98 3.77

SS Total 3.83 3.60 3.94 3.05 3.93 4.14 3.90Total Red 4.02 3.89 4.16 3.30 4.08 4.30 4.06

White 3.86 3.25 3.59 2.90 3.69 4.10 3.63Yellow 3.67 3.42 3.83 2.99 3.81 3.96 3.78

All Total 3.80 3.57 3.92 3.09 3.89 4.09 3.87


Restatement of above data for the composite data from all schools:Hum Total 3.89 3.64 4.02 3.00 3.79 4.19 4.01

NS Total 3.70 3.49 3.84 3.19 3.91 3.94 3.72

SS Total 3.83 3.60 3.94 3.05 3.93 4.14 3.90

All Total 3.80 3.57 3.92 3.09 3.89 4.09 3.87

Sig: 0.082 0.303 0.154 0.204 0.411 0.006 0.009

** **

NS NSlower lower

Hum higher

Part 7, Page: 59

Alumni Survey ‐ Means by School and Division of the CapstoneTable F4


Capstone33 Compared value:





Participating in co-curricular activities

24 Humanities/art/lit Red 2.55 2.41 2.48

White 2.22 2.44 2.33Yellow 2.38 2.54 2.32

Hum Total 2.44 2.48 2.3940 Natural Sciences Red 2.45 2.64 2.58

White 2.13 2.38 2.00Yellow 2.36 2.55 2.48

NS Total 2.38 2.57 2.4945 Social Sciences Red 2.67 2.64 2.54

White 2.38 2.50 2.31Yellow 2.31 2.54 2.43

SS Total 2.44 2.57 2.46Total Red 2.58 2.58 2.54

White 2.31 2.47 2.27Yellow 2.34 2.54 2.43

All Total 2.42 2.55 2.45


Restatement of above data for the composite data from all schools:Hum Total 2.44 2.48 2.39

NS Total 2.38 2.57 2.49

SS Total 2.44 2.57 2.46

All Total 2.42 2.55 2.45

Sig: 0.594 0.368 0.361

No sig. differences

5 2/22/2012Part 7, Page: 60

2007 2004 1999 Female Male Red White Yellow Good Neutral PoorNumber of Comments: 460 153 160 146 300 159 167 40 253 416 25 17

GradSchlPos Graduate School Positive

Capstone was good preparation for graduate school or provided an edge into getting into graduate school 75 24 24 26 59 16 24 9 42 71 3 0

GradSchlNeg Graduate School Negative Capstone neither prepared them for graduate school nor helped them get into graduate school 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 0

CareerPos Career PositiveCapstone was good preparation for career or provided an edge in the job market 44 6 19 19 31 13 17 3 24 43 1 0

CareerNeg Career NegativeCapstone neither prepared them for a career nor helped them get a job 4 1 1 2 4 0 1 0 3 4 0 0

SetsApart Sets School or Students ApartCapstone sets students (or school) apart from other students (or schools) 10 4 3 3 7 3 2 1 7 10 0 0

PersDev Personal DevelopmentCapstone helped student to grow, develop, or change personally 22 7 11 4 15 7 15 1 6 21 1 0

FutLifCh Future Life Choices

Capstone helped guide students in decisions about future graduate school, career, or other interests or life choices 29 9 11 9 20 9 9 1 19 28 1 0

AdvPos Advisor PositivePositive experience with capstone advisor(s) / mentor(s) 82 33 25 24 55 27 48 8 26 80 1 1

OutAdvPos Outside Advisor Positive Positive experience with outside capstone advisor 4 1 0 3 2 2 2 1 1 4 0 0

FacPos Faculty PositivePositive experience with faculty member(s) helping with capstone not identified as advisor(s) 6 5 1 0 4 2 6 0 0 6 0 0

2ndReadNeg Second Reader Negative Negative experience with capstone second reader 2 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1

AdvContAdvisor Continue to Work With

Continue to work with capstone advisor after graduation 2 2 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 0 0

AdvNeg Advisor Negative Negative or weak experience with capstone advisor 38 13 12 13 31 7 12 4 22 19 9 10

VisFacNegVisiting Faculty Advisor Negative

Negative experience with visiting faculty member as advisor 2 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1

DeptProb Departmental ProblemsProblems within the department that affected capstone 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1

Overall Capstone Experience

Teagle Capstone ProjectAPPENDIX: HEDS Alumni Survey Comments Categorized with Frequencies by Total, Graduation Cohort, Gender, School, and Overall Capstone Experience

Variable Names Variable Short Description Variable Long Description

Total No.

Graduation Cohort Gender School

KEY: Blue => 10% of all alumni commenting; Green = 5‐9.9%; Yellow = 4%; and Pink = counts of 10‐17. Page 1 of 7Part 7, Page: 61

TimothySchermer

Text Box

Alumni Survey: Appendix G





Total No.


Team TeamworkGood team work or collaborative experience with capstone 4 1 1 2 3 1 2 0 2 4 0 0

PeerShare Peers ‐ Shared ExperienceCapstone was a positive shared experience among peers in major, department, or college 9 2 3 4 6 3 5 0 4 9 0 0

PeerLackPeers ‐ Lack of Shared Experience

Lack of shared experience by students doing similar capstone projects 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 1 2 0 0

Confid Confidence‐building Capstone was a confidence‐building experience 64 31 15 18 49 15 32 3 29 64 0 0

Indepen Independence / Freedom

Independent thought, research, project development, etc. / Freedom to choose had a positive impact on capstone 80 27 27 26 57 23 32 9 39 78 1 1

IndepNot Independence LackingNot independent capstone project, not self‐directed 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

SensofAccomp Sense of AccomplishmentSense of accomplishment or pride, proud of capstone 89 38 30 21 53 36 32 10 47 87 1 1

PersQualPos Personal Qualities Positive

Personal qualities that helped the capstone ‐ perseverance, endurance, self‐motivation, sense of accountability, work ethic 25 9 7 9 15 10 10 0 15 25 0 0

PersQualNeg Personal Qualities LackingPersonal qualities that were lacking and therefore, didn't help the capstone 9 4 2 3 4 5 3 1 5 8 1 0

StressManage Stress Management Capstone helped with stress management 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0

Process Process Entire capstone process had a positive impact 13 5 2 6 8 5 4 0 9 13 0 0

ProjTM Project Time Management Time management skills gained with capstone 62 19 25 18 44 18 22 5 35 58 3 0

ProjManage Project Management

Managing, leading, directing, planning, organizing, completing a large capstone project was a positive experience 104 32 34 38 75 29 46 7 51 101 3 0

ProjSize Project Size Size or volume of the capstone project was positive 13 4 3 6 7 6 2 1 10 10 2 0

Stress Stressful Experience Capstone was a stress‐inducing experience 10 4 2 4 5 5 2 2 6 7 1 2






Total No.


RSResearch Research Skills ‐ ResearchGained research skills with capstone ‐ ability to do research 54 19 21 14 38 16 21 5 28 51 3 0

RSFailResearch Skills ‐ Dealing with Failure

Gained research skills with capstone ‐ dealing with failure or obstacles in the research process 10 2 3 5 5 5 3 1 6 10 0 0

RSTopicResearch Skills ‐ Choosing a Topic

Gained research skills with capstone ‐ choosing a topic 20 7 5 8 18 2 13 4 3 20 0 0

RSTopicNegResearch Skills ‐ Bad Topic Chosen

Gained research skills with capstone ‐ choosing a bad topic, having an uninteresting topic chosen for student, not narrowing down the topic 14 6 5 3 10 4 6 0 8 7 4 3

RSDevIdeasResearch Skills ‐ Development of Ideas

Gained research skills with capstone ‐ development of ideas 10 6 2 2 7 3 6 0 4 10 0 0

RSDefense Research Skills ‐ Oral Defense Gained research skills with capstone ‐ oral defense 27 6 6 15 13 14 4 0 23 26 1 0

RSAcceptCritResearch Skills ‐ Accepting Criticism

Gained research skills with capstone ‐ accepting criticism 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0

RSCommResults

Research Skills ‐ Communicating Results

Gained research skills with capstone ‐ communicating results 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 1 2 0 0

RSOffSiteResCntr

Research Skills ‐ Off‐Site Research Center

Gained research skills with capstone ‐ experience of working at an off‐site research center, access to resources and exposure to other scientists in the field 2 1 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 2 0 0

RSProfinFldResearch Skills ‐ Meeting Professionals in Field

Gained research skills with capstone ‐ meeting other professionals within the discipline 4 0 2 2 4 0 2 1 1 4 0 0

RSConversantResearch Skills ‐ Becoming Conversant in Field

Gained research skills with capstone ‐ becoming conversant within the discipline 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0

RSSciProcessResearch Skills ‐ Scientific Process

Gained research skills with capstone ‐ appreciation of the scientific process 5 3 2 0 4 1 1 0 4 5 0 0

RSFldResResearch Skills ‐ Field Research Gained research skills with capstone ‐ field research 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0

RSLabExpResearch Skills ‐ Laboratory Experience

Gained research skills with capstone ‐ laboratory experience 5 2 2 1 3 2 1 0 4 5 0 0






Total No.


RSGrantResearch Skills ‐ Applying for a Grant

Gained research skills with capstone ‐ how to apply for a grant 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0

RSUmbrellaResearch Skills ‐ Umbrella grouping Aggregation of any research skill gained 126

SkApplicSkills ‐ Application of knowledge

Gained academic skills in the application of knowledge often to real‐world experiences 4 0 1 3 3 0 1 1 2 4 0 0

SkWriting Skills ‐ WritingGained academic skills in writing or the writing process ‐ outlining, drafting, revising, rewriting, etc. 61 24 24 13 47 14 27 4 30 58 3 0

SkCreat Skills ‐ Creative ThinkingGained academic skills in creative thinking, creativity 8 2 2 4 4 4 4 1 3 8 0 0

SkLifLongLearn Skills ‐ Lifelong Learning Gained academic skills in lifelong learning, curiosity 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0

SkOralComm Skills ‐ Oral CommunicationGained academic skills in oral communication ‐ presenting findings, speaking about research 18 7 6 5 8 10 7 0 11 18 0 0

SkCritTh Skills ‐ Critical Thinking

Gained academic skills in critical thinking ‐ developing and defending an argument, synthesizing ideas, think outside the box, interpret, etc. 28 6 15 7 21 7 11 2 15 28 0 0

SkMem Skills ‐ Memorizing Gained academic skills in memorizing 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0

SkAnalysis Skills ‐ AnalysisGained academic skills in data analysis, analytical thinking, 18 7 7 4 14 4 4 3 11 18 0 0

SkInfoFlu Skills ‐ Information Fluency

Gained academic skills in finding information, researching primary and secondary sources, navigating library, conducting literature searches, using electronic search engines, etc. 9 2 2 5 5 4 5 1 3 9 0 0

SkProbSolv Skills ‐ Problem Solving Gained academic skills in problem solving 6 1 3 2 3 3 3 1 2 6 0 0SkTech Skills ‐ Technology Skills Gained academic skills in technology use 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0SkinFld Skills ‐ in Field Gained academic skills in my field 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 0SkMult Skills ‐ Multitude Gained a multitude of skills 2 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0






Total No.


LASkillsLiberal Arts Skills ‐ Umbrella grouping Aggregation of any liberal arts skill gained 117

Focused Focused studentBecame a better, more focused student because of the capstone 2 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 1 0

Travel Travel Appreciated the capstone travel opportunities 7 3 4 0 5 2 5 0 2 7 0 0

2MajNeg Double Major NegativeDouble major ‐ one good, one bad experience; 2 advisors who did not communicate; spread too thin 3 1 0 2 1 2 2 0 1 3 0 0

2MajPos Double Major Positive Double major ‐ positive experiences 6 2 2 2 4 2 3 0 3 6 0 0

AIntegCorsFlds

Academic ‐ Integrate Courses or Fields

Able to integrate knowledge from several courses or different fields 10 5 3 2 6 4 4 1 5 10 0 0

ACulmExpAcademic ‐ Culminating Experience

Capstone was culminating undergraduate experience 4 1 2 1 1 3 1 0 3 4 0 0

Adepth Academic ‐ DepthCapstone was an opportunity to explore a topic in depth over a period of time 15 3 4 8 12 3 5 2 8 15 0 0

APursInt Academic ‐ Pursue InterestsCapstone was an opportunity to pursue own interests, passions 9 2 4 3 5 4 1 2 6 9 0 0

Acont Academic ‐ Continue to Study Continues to study in the capstone area 14 3 7 3 7 7 6 2 6 13 1 0

AContQuesAcademic ‐ Continue to Question

Continues to think of questions/ways to expand capstone 3 1 1 1 2 1 2 0 1 3 0 0

ALrngExpAcademic ‐ Learning Experience

Capstone was a learning experience, opportunity to create new knowledge 19 8 8 3 10 9 7 1 11 18 1 0

AOrigWork Academic ‐ Original Work Capstone allowed one to create an original work 4 1 2 1 0 4 1 0 3 4 0 0

AIntroResAcademic ‐ Introduction to Research Capstone was first introduction to research 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 0

AcademicAcademic ‐related umbrella grouping Aggregation of any academic‐related comment 66

Recog Recognition

Received some sort of recognition for capstone ‐ conference presentation or other award, publication, recognition of graduate‐level work for undergraduate capstone 10 3 3 3 3 7 6 0 4 10 0 0






Total No.


Advice AdviceAlumni who provided some sort of advice to change the capstone 9 4 3 2 4 5 2 2 5 5 2 2

PrepCap Preparation for Capstone Schools had well prepared students for capstone 4 2 1 1 4 0 2 0 2 4 0 0DescPos Description ‐ Positive Positive descriptors of capstone 11 6 1 4 10 1 8 0 3 11 0 0DescNeg Description ‐ Negative Negative descriptors of capstone 11 6 4 1 7 4 5 1 5 8 0 3

DescBothDescription ‐ Both Positive and Negative Both positive and negative descriptors of capstone 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0

Comps Took Comps not Thesis Took Comps not Thesis ‐ only Washington 3 0 0 3 2 1 0 3 0 1 1 0

SwitchN2PSwitch from Negative to Positive

Initially had a negative view of Capstone which changed to a positive one 7 4 1 2 4 3 5 0 2 7 0 0

SwitchP2NSwitch from Positive to Negative

Initially had a positive view of Capstone which changed to a negative one 2 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 2

Benefits Benefits Benefits of capstone 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 2 2 1 0

Lib‐related Library‐RelatedLibrary comments ‐ liked carrol, library navigation, minimal help from librarians 3 0 2 1 2 1 2 0 1 3 0 0

WritCntr Writing Center Used Writing Center for capstone 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0

ResSubjPos Research Subjects PositiveBecame fond of/developed good relationship with Capstone research subjects 3 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 3 3 0 0

BestExp Best ExperienceBest, most rewarding experience of undergraduate years, life 9 4 3 2 4 5 2 1 6 9 0 0

NLackMotiv Negative ‐ Lack of MotivationNegative impact ‐ not motivated for various reasons 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0

NWrkLdBal Negative ‐ Workload BalanceNegative impact ‐ difficulty balancing heavy courseload, etc. with capstone 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 0

NNoDIff Negative ‐ No DifferentNegative impact ‐ no different from other courses, more hype than work 5 1 2 2 3 2 0 1 4 4 1 0

NOpptCost Negative ‐ Opportunity Cost

Negative impact ‐ opportunity costs noted ‐ seniors taken out of academic/social life of college, preferred another course in major, preferred to work on graduate school application or career options 5 2 2 1 2 3 1 0 4 3 0 2

NBadExp Negative ‐ Bad Experience Negative impact ‐ overall bad experience 4 2 1 1 3 1 1 0 3 1 0 3






Total No.


Nrestrictns Negative ‐ RestrictionsNegative impact ‐ requirements are too restrictive, bureaucratic 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 1

NNotPrep Negative ‐ Not PreparedNegative impact ‐ not prepared for certain aspects of capstone 7 2 1 4 3 4 0 1 6 7 0 0

NTooIndep Negative ‐ Too IndependentNegative impact ‐ Capstone is too independent, real world is more collaborative 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0

NLackRes Negative ‐ Lack of ResourcesNegative impact ‐ lack of resources, broken equipment 8 3 1 4 7 1 1 0 7 6 1 1

NCapIneq Negative ‐ Capstone InequitiesNegative impact ‐ inequities in requirements/expecations among departments 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 1


Home | Features | Hosting | Privacy | Contact Us Log out enewcomer

New Builder Settings Security Mailing Preview Results Statistics

Builder | Answers editor

Survey builder HEDS - Master Alumni Survey

Page 1 Delete | Insert question | Insert line break | Enable random | Edit branching | Enable submit

Edit question | Edit answersEdit answers | Delete | Clone | Insert question | Insert page break | Insert line break | Skip logicSkip logic

Institution Name Welcome to the ALUMNI SURVEY. Please complete the following questions to provide your feedback. Thanks for contributing your information.

Instructions The survey is organized into several pages with questions on each page. Complete the questions on each page and then click the [Next page >>] button. If you need to return to a previous page, click the [<< Previous page] button. You may save your progress and return to the survey at a later time, but, click the [Save progress] button before closing your browser - use the same method to return to the survey that you first used to access the survey.


Edit question | Edit answersEdit answers | Delete | Clone | Insert question | Insert page break | Insert line break | Skip logic

Part A. Evaluation of your Undergraduate Education Edit question | Edit answersEdit answers | Delete | Clone | Insert question | Insert page break | Insert line break | Skip logic

Undergraduate Education - Importance in Current Activities Edit question | Edit answersEdit answers | Delete | Clone | Insert question | Insert page break | Insert line break | Skip logic

The list below contains some abilities and types of knowledge that may be developed in a bachelor's degree program. Please indicate how important each is today in both your personal and professional life. (Click a circle for each item.)


1. Critical Thinking-Importance in Current Activities

Not at all A little Moderately Greatly

Acquire new skills and knowledge

Think analytically and logically

Formulate creative/original ideas

Academic ability


2. Skills/Learning-Importance in Current Activities


Page 1 of 14Web Admin @ GetSurveyed.com

5/9/2007http://www.getsurveyed.com/Admin/surveycontentbuilder.aspx?surveyid=9&menuindex=4

Part 7, Page: 68

TimothySchermer

Text Box

APPENDIX C

Write effectively

Use quantitative tools

Appreciate arts, literature, music, drama

Gain in-depth knowledge of a field

Read or speak a foreign language


3. Social/Moral Awareness-Importance in Current Activities


Develop awareness of societal problems

Place current problems in perspective

Understand moral/ethical issues


4. Self Development-Importance in Current Activities


Understand myself

Function independently, without supervision

Develop self-esteem

Establish a course of action to accomplish goals

Intellectual self-confidence

Develop desire for continued learning


5. Relationship Skills-Importance in Current Activities


Lead and supervise tasks and groups of people

Relate well to people of different cultures/races

Function effectively as a member of a team

Communicate well orally

Understand others


6. Understanding Science and Technology-Importance in Current Activities


Understand the process of science

Use technology



Undergraduate Education - Extent enhanced by undergraduate experience



Part 7, Page: 69


The list below contains the same abilities and types of knowledge that may be developed in a bachelor's degree program. Please indicate the extent to which each capacity was enhanced by your undergraduate experiences. (Click a circle for each item.)


7. Critical Thinking-Extent enhanced by undergraduate experience


Acquire new skills and knowledge

Think analytically and logically

Formulate creative/original ideas

Academic ability


8. Skills/Learning-Extent enhanced by undergraduate experience


Write effectively

Use quantitative tools

Appreciate arts, literature, music, drama

Gain in-depth knowledge of a field

Read or speak a foreign language


9. Social/Moral Awareness-Extent enhanced by undergraduate experience


Develop awareness of societal problems

Place current problems in perspective

Understand moral/ethical issues


10. Self Development-Extent enhanced by undergraduate experience


Understand myself

Function independently, without supervision

Develop self-esteem

Establish a course of action to accomplish goals

Intellectual self-confidence

Develop desire for continued learning


11. Relationship Skills-Extent enhanced by undergraduate experience


Lead and supervise tasks and groups of people

Relate well to people of different cultures/races



Part 7, Page: 70

Function effectively as a member of a team

Communicate well orally

Understand others


12. Understanding Science and Technology-Extent enhanced by undergraduate experience


Understand the process of science

Use technology



College Experiences Edit question | Edit answersEdit answers | Delete | Clone | Insert question | Insert page break | Insert line break | Skip logic

Using the perspective gained since you graduated, how satisfied are you with each of the following services or aspects of your college? (Click a circle for each item.)


13. Academic Experiences

Very Dissatisfied

Generally Dissatisfied

Generally Satisfied Very Satisfied Not Relevant

Academic advising

Contact with faculty

Quality of teaching

Courses in major field

Courses outside major field

Independent study/research


14. Campus Services and Facilities

Very Dissatisfied



Career services

Financial services

Library resources

Recreation/athletics

Residential life


15. Campus Climate

Very Dissatisfied



Student voice in policies



Part 7, Page: 71

Campus safety

Sense of belonging

Ethnic/racial diversity

Social life on campus



Expectations Edit question | Edit answersEdit answers | Delete | Clone | Insert question | Insert page break | Insert line break | Skip logic

To what extent did your undergraduate experience fulfill your original expectations in the following areas? (Click a circle for each item.)


16. Expectations

Not at All A Little Moderately Greatly

Enhance your intellectual growth

Acquire in-depth knowledge in a particular field

Develop competency in career relevant skills

Foster your personal growth

Promote your ability to form relationships


Edit question | Edit answers | Delete | Clone | Insert question | Insert page break | Insert line break | Skip logic

17. Overall, how satisfied have you been with your undergraduate education?

Very Dissatisfied Generally Dissatisfied Generally Satisfied Very Satisfied


18. Would you encourage a high school senior who is like you were as a high school senior (similar background, interests, and temperament) to attend your undergraduate institution?

Definitely not Probably Not Maybe Probably Would Definitely Would



Part B. College Impact


Activities - Your Level of Involvement Edit question | Edit answersEdit answers | Delete | Clone | Insert question | Insert page break | Insert line break | Skip logic

Please review the following list of undergraduate activities. Evaluate each for your level of involvement while an undergraduate (click a circle for each item).


19. Extracurricular Activities-Your Level of Involvement

None A little Moderate Extensive



Part 7, Page: 72

Student or campus government

Intercollegiate athletics

Intramural sports

Student publications

Performing arts/music

Political organization or club

Community service

Fraternity/sorority

Religious groups


20. Academic Activities-Your Level of Involvement


Internships

Study abroad

Work on faculty research

Independent study


21. Employment Activities-Your Level of Involvement


On-campus employment

Off-campus employment



Activities - Contribution to Your Development


For those activities in which you were involved, please evaluate the contribution of each activity to your personal or professional life after graduation.


22. Extracurricular Activities-Contribution to Your Development

None A little Moderate Extensive Not relevant

Student or campus government

Intercollegiate athletics

Intramural sports

Student publications

Performing arts/music

Political organization or club

Community service



Part 7, Page: 73

Fraternity/sorority

Religious groups


23. Academic Activities-Contribution to Your Development


Internships

Study abroad

Work on faculty research

Independent study


24. Employment Activities-Contribution to Your Development


On-campus employment

Off-campus employment



25. To what extent did your undergraduate experience prepare you for the following activities? (Click a circle for each item.)


Post-Baccalaureate education

Current career

Social and civic involvement

Interpersonal relationships and family living



Part C. Continuing Involvement with Alma Mater


26. In the past five years, how frequently have you participated in the following activities sponsored by your undergraduate alma mater? (Click a circle for each item.)

Never Briefly Occasionally Frequently

Read campus publications

Visited the institution's web site

Visited campus for any purpose

Attended alumni functions on campus

Attended alumni functions off campus

Attended alma mater sporting events



Part 7, Page: 74

Served as an alumni admissions volunteer

Participated in a career advisory program

Participated in an alumni continuing education programParticipated in an alumni community service program

Contributed to or solicited for the annual fund

Maintained contact with other alumni

Maintained contact with faculty members

Maintained contact with administrators


27. To what extent do you identify with your undergraduate alma mater?

Not at all Very little Somewhat Strongly Very strongly



Part D. Post-Graduation Activities


28. Which of the following best describes your primary activities during the year immediately following your undergraduate degree and currently? (Choose as many items as apply in each column.)

Immediately after graduation Currently

Employment full-time

Employment part-time

Graduate/professional school full-time

Graduate/professional school part-time

Not employed, seeking employment

Not employed by choice (homemaker, volunteer, traveling, etc.)


29. What was your principal occupation immediately after graduation; what is your current occupation; and what career would you ultimately like to have? (Please select a specific occupation below the topical headings.)

Year Following Graduation [Choose Occupation]

Currently [Choose Occupation]

Ultimately [Choose Occupation]



30. What is your current annual income range before taxes?



Part 7, Page: 75

No earned income $60,000 to $79,999

less than $19,999 $80,000 to $99,999

$20,000 to $39,999 $100,000 to $119,999

$40,000 to $59,999 more than $120,000


31. To what extent have you voluntarily participated in the following organizations since graduating from your alma mater? (Click a circle for each item.)

Not at all A little Moderately A lot

Civic/Community

Cultural/Arts

Educational Service (e.g., PTA)

Political

Professional

Recreational (e.g., sports club)

Religious

Service (e.g., Rotary, Kiwanis)

Youth (e.g., little league, scouting)


Voters who did answer to If you have no educational plans beyond ... with No educational plans are redirected to page 15 (Delete rule)


Further Degrees


32. If you have no educational plans beyond your undergraduate degree, please mark here.

No educational plans



Further Degrees Edit question | Edit answersEdit answers | Delete | Clone | Insert question | Insert page break | Insert line break | Skip logic

What further degree(s) have you received, are you currently working toward or do you hope to attain in the future? (Mark all that apply.)


33. Bachelors Degree:

Degree received Currently enrolled or working toward

Highest degree you hope to attain

Second Bachelor's Degree


34. Masters Degrees:





Part 7, Page: 76

Architecture

Business

Education

Engineering

Humanities or Arts

Life Sciences

Mathematics or Computer Sciences

Physical Sciences

Psychology

Religion/Theology

Social Sciences

Other Master’s degree – (Please specify below)


35. If you chose "Other Master's Degree" above, please specify here.


36. Professional Degrees:



Law (LLB or JD)

Medical Degree (M.D., D.O., D.D.S., D.V.M)

Other professional degree – (Please specify below)


37. If you chose "Other Professional Degree" above, please specify here.


38. Doctoral Degrees:



Education

Engineering

Humanities or Arts

Life Sciences

Mathematics or Computer Sciences

Physical Sciences

Psychology



Part 7, Page: 77

Religion/Theology

Social Sciences

Other Doctoral degree – (Please specify below)


39. If you chose "Other Doctoral Degree" above, please specify here.



Part E. Alumni Profile


40. In what year did you complete your undergraduate major?Year [Choose a year]


41. What was the field of study of your undergraduate major? (Mark more than one ONLY if you had a double major.)

Architecture and Design Art and Music Business and Management Communications

Education Engineering Geosciences Humanities

Life Sciences Math and Computer Sciences Physical Sciences Psychology

Social Sciences Other Non-Science Fields



42. How relevant is your undergraduate major field(s) of study to your current career?

Unrelated Indirectly related Directly related


43. What was the overall grade you received during your undergraduate career?

A A- B+ B B-/C+ C or Below


44. Did you receive any of the following undergraduate awards as a senior? (Choose all that apply.)

Latin honors (cum laude, etc)

Phi Beta Kappa

Sigma Xi

Honors in major

Other, please specify



Part 7, Page: 78

Delete | Insert question | Insert line break | Enable random | Edit branching | Enable submit

Voters who did answer to At the time that you graduated, what was... with No loans are redirected to page 19 (Delete rule)


45. Did you receive financial aid for your undergraduate education?

Yes No


46. If YES, mark all that you received.

Merit award Need-based grant Loan Work study


47. At the time that you graduated, what was the total amount borrowed to finance your undergraduate education which you were personally responsible for paying?

No loans less than $4,999 $5,000 to $9,999 $10,000 to $14,999

$15,000 to $19,999 $20,000 or more More than $0, but unable to estimate amount



48. To what extent have your UNDERGRADUATE educational loans caused the following? (Click a circle for each item.)

Not at All Somewhat To a great extent Not relevantAllowed me to get a degree at an otherwise unaffordable institution

Focused job search on higher paying fields

Postponed or canceled post-baccalaureate education



49. What is your sex?

Male Female


50. What is your age?

25 or younger 26 to 29 30 or older


51. What is your citizenship status?

United States Citizen US Permanent Resident Non-US Citizen


52. Your race/ethnic background (Mark all that apply.)

Asian, Pacific Islander Native American

Black, Non-Hispanic White, Non-Hispanic



Part 7, Page: 79

Hispanic Other


Voters who did answer to How many dependent children do you have? with None are redirected to page 22 (Delete rule)


53. What is your current personal status?

Married or living with partner

Widowed

Separated or Divorced

Single


54. How many dependent children do you have?

None 1 or 2 More than 2



55. How old is your oldest child?

0 to 2 3 to 5 6 to 10

11 to 15 16 to 20 21 or older


56. How old is your youngest child? (if more than one child.)

0 to 2 3 to 5 6 to 10

11 to 15 16 to 20 21 or older



Part F. Supplemental Questions

Page 23 Delete | Insert question | Insert line break | Enable random | Edit branchingEdit branching | Enable submitEnable submit


Part G. Comments


57. Please use this space to amplify on any of your responses on this questionnaire, or on any aspect of your undergraduate experience. Your comments will be welcomed, read, and considered.Comments



Part 7, Page: 80

Part 7, Appendix H SENIOR CAPSTONE EXPERIENCES

1. The primary academic discipline or major for your project ___________

If applicable, the secondary academic discipline or major for your project: ______________

2. Please rate your overall capstone experience.

3 Exceptionally good; 2 Very good; 1 Good; 0 Neutral; ‐1 Poor; ‐2 Very poor; ‐3 Exceptionally poor

3. What grade did you receive for your capstone? ___________

4. Please indicate the degree to which your senior project contributed to your development in the following areas: (5:very much, 4:quite a bit, 3:somewhat , 2:very little, 1:not at all, Not applicable)

Managing a large project Learning effectively on my own Ability to make an effective oral presentation Having confidence in my own abilities Ability to think critically and analytically Ability to think creatively Ability to write effectively Skill in the interpreting of data, evidence, texts, and/or works Integrating ideas from multiple disciplines

Working collaboratively ‐ Augustana only Seeing a connection between my intended career and its effect on society – Augustana only


[5:Strongly agree, 4: Agree, 3: Neutral, 2: Disagree, 1: Strongly disagree] My capstone was more intellectually challenging than my regular coursework I developed more academically from my capstone than from a regular course My capstone led me to a better understanding of my skills, abilities and interests My capstone helped me clarify my career or graduate school objectives Because of my capstone, I feel I was better prepared for a job or graduate school than peers without a capstone experience

My capstone had a positive influence on my intellectual growth and interest in ideas My capstone had a positive influence on my personal growth, attitudes, and values

6. As a contribution to your personal or professional life after graduation, how do you think your capstone course compares with alternative experiences you might have participated in instead? [More valuable than the capstone As valuable Less valuable than the capstone]

Taking additional courses in my major Taking additional courses outside of my major Participating in additional co‐curricular activities (sports, music, newspaper, leadership, etc.)

7. What about your capstone experience (good or bad) had the most impact on you?

Part 7, Page: 82

PART 8: FOCUS GROUP STUDY

Focus groups for students, faculty and capstone support staff were conducted at each campus in the spring of 2011. To promote candor the groups were lead by Teagle Scholars from the Center for Inquiry into the Liberal Arts who were not affiliated with any of the campuses. Each campus received a separate report on its own focus groups. The report included here is the comprehensive report for the four campuses written by Bruce Colwell, the lead Teagle Scholar who lead the focus groups at all four campuses.

Comprehensive Summary Report of the Focus Group Sessions for the Teagle Assessment Project

Appendices

Focus Group Methodology

Focus Group Questions

• Students

• Faculty

• Support Staff

Part 8, Page: 1

Comprehensive Summary Report

Of the Focus Group Sessions for the Teagle Assessment Project

The Senior Capstone: Transformative Experiences in the Liberal Arts

I. Introduction Two Teagle Assessment Scholars from the Center for Inquiry in the Liberal Arts conducted focus groups at Allegheny College, Augustana College, Washington College, and The College of Wooster as part of an assessment project of universally required senior capstone experience, The Senior Capstone: Transformative Experiences in the Liberal Arts. Each college has received an individual institutional summary (see Appendix) of their campus sessions. This comprehensive report is an aggregate summary of qualitative data from the four colleges, summarizing the focus group participant responses and using this qualitative data to address the primary research questions of the Senior Capstone study. The Senior Capstone assessment project is designed to “explore how different constructions of a single concept (a capstone project required of all seniors) can lead to rich learning experiences for both students and faculty”, and sought to examine “what works best in the capstones, within our colleges and across them, and how we could use that knowledge to improve them and create models of best practice.” This study is especially interested in assessing the particular approach to the capstone that they share, noting their colleges “are distinctive in that they require all students to engage in a capstone experience built around a one-on-one mentoring relationship with a faculty member.” Consequently this assessment project seeks to “shed light on the educational benefits of undergraduate capstone projects for all students.” The Senior Capstone assessment project has four over-all goals:

1. “To assess the degree to which a universal capstone contributes to outcomes that lead to life-long learning”; specifically a) “being able to plan and conduct an intellectually demanding project”, b) “developing an understanding of one’s self and one’s interests and capabilities”, and c) “understanding the nature of research and how knowledge is constructed”.

2. To identify capstone program components and characteristics at each institution by refining the inventory developed during the planning grant.”

3. “To identify features of the capstone … producing positive experiences.” 4. “To distinguish variations in program characteristics, experiences, and outcomes across

institutions and disciplines …”

From these four goals the project posits 8 research questions to be explored through multiple assessment methods – pre and post surveys of senior students, pre and post surveys of faculty mentors, institutional capstone inventories, student record data bases, a HEDS Alumni survey, and finally the campus focus group sessions. The focus group sessions were designed to collect qualitative data with questions addressing six of the research questions:

1. What is the impact of the capstone experience on outcomes leading to lifelong learning? 2. How does the capstone experience benefit the student and the faculty member? 3. What are the similarities and differences in how capstone programs are formulated?

Part 8, Page: 2

4. What resources (programs, structures, and personnel) are provided to support capstone programs?

5. How do faculty and staff perceive and experience the capstone? 6. How do students experience the capstone? What is the range of student capstone experiences,

and what are the conditions and practices that result in the most positive capstone experiences?

This report will summarize, interpret, and analyze the focus group participant responses to the six research question from the four institutions. The focus group process was nearly identical for each school: lead Teagle Scholar Bruce Colwell and an assistant followed a similar schedule (appendix 1) on a 3 day visit, meeting with each campus assessment project committee, academic administrators, taking a senior student led campus tour, and conducting six ninety-minute focus groups, two faculty (one tenured, one un-tenured), three student (humanities, social science, and natural science), and one staff. The same set of discussion questions (appendix 2) for each constituency was used on all four campuses.

Participants were selected in the following manner: the student group gendered balanced, with a range of GPA’s, from a variety of departments ; faculty divided tenured and non-tenured from a variety of departments; and staff representing the administrative support departments working most directly with senior capstone students. Participants in each of the 24 sessions provided articulate, thoughtful and candid descriptions of their experience with the senior capstone, and we believe were heard a great variety of perspectives. The focus group format, with a small number of participants responding to broad open ended questions, provides detailed, rich, and nuanced descriptions of the capstone experience. However, it must be recognized that the small numbers are also a limitation of this assessment method, as it is difficult knowing how representative our participants were of their constituency.

The four institutions participating in this Teagle funded senior capstone experience assessment project are similar in many ways, beyond their universal requirement of a senior capstone project: all four are small, residential, liberal arts colleges with similar student body size and selectivity, and generally comparable faculty and curriculum. All four colleges are committed to providing a student centered learning environment, with low faculty/student ratios allowing personal high quality teaching and advising. The senior capstone, an individual student designed research project “built around the one-to-one mentoring relationship with a faculty member” is a natural extension of the kind of learning experiences these institutions provide so well.

Consequently, it is not surprising that the qualitative data from the focus group assessments show a basic similarity among the four capstone programs. The capstone programs and the capstone experiences of students, faculty, and staff at Allegheny, Augustana, Washington and Wooster are fundamentally more alike than different. The most notable similarities across all four institutions:

• A commitment to the universal capstone requirement and program. All faculty and most student focus group participants at all four institutions are committed to the universal capstone requirement, and believe that all students benefit significantly (though not equally) from the senior capstone project.

• Educational rationale for the capstone project. Again, all faculty and most student participants believe that a large, challenging, self-directed, independent original research project requiring students to integrate disciplinary knowledge and liberal arts skills (research, analysis, problem-solving, writing) is a unique culminating (and for some transformative) educational experience.

• Importance of student ownership and personal investment in the project. Both students and faculty identified the degree of student ownership and responsibility as the key to a positive, successful (and especially transformative) capstone experience.

Part 8, Page: 3

• The capstone experience is primarily a department/academic discipline (rather than institutional and general liberal arts) based educational experience. Consequently, many focus group responses began with “in our department” rather than “at our institution”. At all four campuses the central administration’s (the academic Dean’s Office) coordination of the capstone program is loose and diffuse, leaving the actual implementation and important issues (topic selection, adviser expectations, and workload) to departments. This department specific capstone experience seemed strongest at Washington and Augustana, less so at Allegheny, and the least at Wooster.

• The student-faculty adviser relationship is important, and the faculty advising role is time intensive. Consequently, faculty workload is an issue in departments with large number of majors.

Although the basic capstone program is similar at all four institutions, with greater variation within than among institutions, there are a few notable ways in which the four institutions programs are different:

• The extent of variation of student experience within institutions. Based on the focus group comments, Wooster and Allegheny students described the least internal variation, Washington students more and Augustana students the most. Variation in experiences seem to result from a) multiple types of capstones (original research, literature based research, case studies, internship study, comprehensive exam), b) different size and duration (from one ten week term to three semesters), and c) varying expectations from different disciplines and departments.

• The capstone’s presence in recruiting and admissions. At two institutions (Wooster and Allegheny) many faculty and students talked about the presence of a universal capstone as a key factor in their selection of the college.

• The importance of the capstone in the institutional identity and campus culture. Again, at both Allegheny and Wooster the capstone project and experience was portrayed by students, faculty, and staff as a defining feature of the college; indeed, at Wooster the Independent Study program is described as the institutional brand and admissions market niche, proudly claiming that they have the premier senior capstone program among the nation’s liberal arts colleges.

II. Institutional context of the four Senior Capstone programs

The chart below summarizes the institutional context for the four capstone programs, outlining the “different constructions of a single concept” on the four campuses. (Source: Project Proposal)


Capstone Title (Informal)

Senior Comprehensive Project (Comps)

Senior Inquiry (SI) Senior Capstone Experience (SCE)

Independent Study (IS)

Description Independent project under faculty mentor

Culminating project of synthesis, analysis, and reflection

Project of active learning within the major

Junior year Independent Study plus a two‐course senior year IS

Part 8, Page: 4


Purpose/Objective Integrate disciplinary knowledge & liberal arts skills

Substantial in meaning, communicative of discoveries, reflective; with a meaningful mentor relationship

Integrate knowledge and skills to produce sense of mastery and intellectual accomplishment

Develop and demonstrate capacity for individual inquiry and expression: “invites students to come to their best in terms of their own talents”

Prerequisites Junior seminar; approved proposal

Earlier department course(s)

Department approval; sometimes research methods course; college writing requirement

Most departments require a methods seminar or a one semester Junior IS course

Project length One or two semesters: 4, 6, or 8 credits

No institutional requirement; most one term (10 weeks), some 2 or 3 terms

Varies by department; typically two semesters

Junior IS one semester; Senior Independent Study is two semesters

Format (product) Bound manuscript 40‐80 pages or presentation; oral defense

No institutional requirement; determined by needs of department curriculum

Varies by department. Includes: thesis, research experiment, public performance or show, comprehensive exam

Choice of content process and method varies; all students produce written theses or creative presentation; oral defense

Supervision One faculty advisor and second reader. Advising compensation by department.

Ideally, one faculty advisor; some group advising in class seminar. Sometimes second readers. Advising comp.

Individually with faculty advisor Advising comp. ratio 11 to 1

Individually with faculty advisor; typically one hour weekly meetings; most have second reader. Advising comp ratio 5 to 1

Evaluation Letter grade; passing required for graduation

Varies by department Set by department. Some honors, pass, fail or pass and fail; others regular grades; passing required for graduation.

All IS graded by two faculty: No Credit, Satisfactory, Good, or Honors

History Present SCP format since 1942; some kind of capstone since 1821

SI designed in 2005‐6, implemented 2008‐11

Previously thesis or comprehensive exam and called “senior obligation”; present SCE since 2004‐5

IS established by President Lowry (using the Princeton IS plan) in 1942

Part 8, Page: 5

III. Summary of Focus Group Conversations

Although there are many differences in the types of capstone projects both within and among the four institutions, the focus group discussions were remarkably similar among the four institutions. That is, student responses to the student questions and their descriptions of their capstone experiences generally matched those of students with similar projects at the other schools. Faculty advisors likewise described similar experiences as faculty (advising similar types of projects) at the other schools. Consequently, the focus group discussions are summarized by topic and question (and constituency), and not by institution. This descriptive summary will provide content and context for the narrative analysis of the six project research questions in the final section.

Student responses.

Capstone topic selection. At all institutions the topic selection process is designed to allow individual students latitude to choose a topic in which they have a significant personal interest; ideally, a subject about which they are passionate. For a majority of students, especially in the humanities and social sciences, this works very well. These students selected their topics and shaped their research question through one of the following means: from a long-held personal interest or passion, a study abroad experience, a summer employment or internship experience, a previous course, the junior seminar, or a conversation with a favorite faculty member. However, students in some departments, especially in the natural sciences, have less freedom in topic selection, choosing a project in a faculty’s research area or choosing a topic from a prescribed capstone course theme (i.e., winter biology or Jane Austin novels). Regardless of the topic selection process, most students are able to sustain their interest and remain engaged. Even those with more prescribed choices found their enthusiasm grow as they made the specific topic their own, and as they moved deeper into the material.

Capstone preparation. Most students across all four campuses and all three academic divisions felt well prepared for their capstone project, citing 1) previous coursework in the major, 2) the capstone junior seminar or methods course, and 3) the research and writing intensive courses throughout the curriculum as particularly helpful. Some students recognized and appreciated the purposeful sequencing of courses (“backward design” at Augustana) and explicit references (“this assignment will help prepare you for your senior project”) in the first three years. The few students who felt less or unprepared did not benefit from one or more of the three preparation sources, or admitted they lacked self-discipline and organizational and time management skills.

Mentoring/Advising Relationship. Students at all four institutions agreed that the one to one student/faculty advising relationship was an important component in the capstone experience. For most students the support, encouragement, guidance, and constructive critiquing from their advisor were critical for a successful project and a positive experience. Yet the capstone advisor role and relationship varied significantly at all four institutions, by department and by individual faculty. Many students reported regular weekly advisor meetings (some science students had daily contact) throughout the project, some more sporadic as needed or requested, and a few with little interaction. Relationships ranged from close friend/mentor to helpful advisor to distant critic to unavailable paper reader; fortunately most were helpful and supportive.

Capstone contribution to education (What I learned or gained from my capstone …). Students from all institutions and all disciplines noted they learned a) a significant amount about their topic (“I felt like an expert”); b) how to practice or do their discipline; c) how to pitch a proposal, shape a research

Part 8, Page: 6

question, and execute a large project; d) self-discipline, organization, and time management; e) advanced writing and presentation skills; f) self-sufficiency and persistence; and g) confidence.

Observations and Recommendations. While many student observations and recommendations addressed issues specific to their school or department, the following were heard on all four campuses: a) the capstone is valuable and important, and should continue to be universally required; b) review the credits awarded for the capstone project, with general belief that students deserve more credits for the work they are doing; c) increase financial support for individual projects; d) more structure and clearer guidelines; e) better and earlier introduction to the project; and f) expand the public presentations and celebrations.

Faculty responses

Capstone purpose and characteristic. Although the capstone project formats vary from campus to campus, faculty described a common set of purposes for the senior capstone. All four faculties cited these purposes and characteristics for their capstone programs:

1. The capstone experience is a four year process that culminates in a senior project. The capstone program “is an academic journey, a four year process” that “provides a framework for thinking and inquiry, and brings cohesion to the curriculum.” In the first three years both the general education and department curriculum intentionally prepares students for the senior year project, requiring “backward design” of the curriculum.

2. To require students to “take ownership of the learning process” and practice active learning. The capstone is a uniquely independent and self-directed learning experience.

3. To move students from studying in a discipline to practicing a discipline. To move students from studying philosophy to being a philosopher, from being students to being practitioners.

4. To require students to complete a substantial sustained research project requiring organizational and time management skills.

5. To require students to demonstrate advanced research and analytical skills, and to integrate and synthesis previously material.

Faculty at all four institutions also had similar descriptions of a “successful” capstone project as one in which the student a) is self-directed and takes full responsibility and ownership for their learning; b) communicates their interest and passion; c) demonstrates advanced analysis, research, and writing; d) provides evidence of growth and change; and e) develops an innovative, novel, or original research question. Faculty participants at all four schools also voiced nearly unanimous commitment to the universal requirement, and shared the belief that all students benefit significantly (though not equally) from the capstone experience. Many faculty cited examples of average or weak students who “caught fire” or “blossomed” and produced an outstanding paper; another shared a department study that concluded “there’s no correlation between how our majors do in our courses and how well they do on their projects.”

Advising relationship and impact. Faculty participants were universally positive about their experiences as capstone advisors, and described a common advising role that included a) guiding the shaping of a feasible well-defined topic and research question, b) meeting regularly and providing needed structure, direction, and deadlines, c) providing encouragement and emotional support (coach, advocate, cheerleader), d) reviewing, challenging and critiquing advisee’s thinking and writing, and e) consulting as a “co-learner” and academic colleague. Many faculty advisors performed the additional roles of mentor, friend, life coach and career counselor. There was considerable

Part 8, Page: 7

conversation about striking the right balance and degree of guidance and direction, taking care to honor the advisee’s independence and autonomy.

Faculty seem to take their capstone advising responsibilities very seriously, many devoting significant time (some more than 2 hours per week) and energy to each student. Consequently most faculty are challenged to find adequate time for the capstone advising, and those with large advising loads (more than 5 advisees) often find it affecting their teaching or their own research and writing. Although most faculty appreciate the workload compensation (in course release) arrangement, many feel the allotment ratios (ranging from 5 to 1 to 12 to 1) are inadequate.

Observations and recommendations.

Although many faculty observations and recommendations for improvements were campus-specific, there were a number of common recommendations across all four institutions:

1. Examine and address the workload issues affecting some faculty and some departments. Capstone projects for every senior built around one to one advising require significant faculty time; when these work demands are inequitably distributed (as the majors are) by department, some faculty must advise large numbers of students, and other faculty have few or no advisees.

2. Preparation and prerequisites: Review and revise department and college curriculum to ensure all students are prepared for a positive and successful capstone experience. Most faculty focus group participants believed most students are well prepared, but suggested strengthening preparation strategies could have all students better prepared.

3. Junior faculty recommended more formal orientation for new and visiting faculty serving as capstone advisors.

4. Increased opportunities for institution-wide (across departments) faculty conversations of capstone procedures and best practices.

5. Review the capstone experiences of students with two majors. Each institution had a significant number of double majors, and some faculty expressed concern that neither a single interdisciplinary project nor two projects served some double majors well.

Staff responses.

Staff from the library, writing and academic support centers, and instructional and information technology at each institution described how they supported and served the senior capstone program. While each institution had some campus specific issues, the general support staff experience was quite similar across the four schools. At all four institutions staff reported

1. Students used their offices and resources effectively and appropriately. 2. That they generally feel valued and appreciated by both capstone students and faculty. 3. Much of their support for the capstone program is indirect, working with underclass students

preparing for the capstone; the writing center working primarily with first-year and writing intensive classes, the library working on research skills with junior seminar or methods classes, etc.

4. There is significant direct support for seniors, although most offices did not keep statistics specifically on senior capstone. Consequently most support staff did not believe that their academic administration had full or accurate information about the capstone use or need of their services. Therefore, they suggest that some of their work constitutes a hidden cost of the capstone program.

Part 8, Page: 8

5. Their offices can presently meet the needs and demand of the capstone students and faculty, but do not have the capacity to take on additional senior traffic.

IV. Focus Group Findings and the Project Research Questions 1. What is the impact of the capstone experience on outcomes leading to life-long learning?

The project identified three specific outcomes to explore: 1) being able to plan and conduct an intellectually demanding project; 2) developing an understanding of one’s self and one’s interests and capabilities; and 3) understanding of the nature of research and how knowledge is constructed. Qualitative focus group data can begin to describe (though not measure) the impact of the capstone on outcomes leading to life-long learning. Most students, still in the midst of their capstone experience, cannot know how their capstone learning will benefit them in the future. Yet they can describe what they believe they are learning and gaining from the capstone project. Faculty advisors, evaluating the projects and closely observing the students, are able to assess and describe the impact of the capstone on specific outcomes. All students and faculty participants identified planning and conducting a demanding project as a primary outcome of the capstone experience. Some student groups immediately understood that the capstone project was the largest and most difficult academic task, but struggled to articulate the specific skills and qualities they needed to “plan and conduct” their project. Yet each student focus group on all four campuses ultimately produced a similar response to the question “what have you learned from your capstone?”, listing a) doing original research, b) designing one’s own project, c) being self-sufficient and independent, c) thinking creatively and critically, solving problems and persevering, d) practicing effective time management and organization. Faculty identified a similar list, and both lists were very similar to the Project proposal’s list of outcomes needed to plan and conduct a project. The unique nature of the capstone project – the complexity and scale, long duration, degree of independence and self management required – seems to produce outcomes that lead to lifelong learning. Students talked less about the capstone’s impact on their self-understanding outcomes, perhaps because they were more focused on completing the task than thinking about what it meant. This self-understanding may require some time and distance from the actual project. Nonetheless, the capstone was making an impact on many of the self understanding outcomes. For some students, particularly those going directly to graduate school, the project did clarify and confirm career path decisions, and further develop their interest in research and higher level cognition. Most students expressed a sense of accomplishment and a growth in their intellectual self confidence; none of the student participants seemed defeated or broken by the experience, hopefully more evidence that all students benefit (or at least none are harmed) from the universal requirement. There were two or three students at Allegheny and Washington who were more negative, who felt that the capstone was not relevant to their future, and was just another big paper and a requirement to complete. The student focus groups shed even less light on the third set of self-understanding outcomes, “the nature of research and how knowledge is constructed.” Most students did note the value of “practicing their discipline”, that while their science courses “were fake science, while my SI (capstone) research was real science.” Yet none of the students talked about increasing their

Part 8, Page: 9

understanding of how things are known, the interrelationship of knowledge, or valuing different points of view. It is not surprising that undergraduate students are less articulate about learning outcomes, and the nature of research and knowledge. But it was striking how little some students seemed to know about the purposes and educational rationale for the senior capstone, little understanding of the value, importance, and benefits of the capstone, and consequently why the college requires the capstone for all students. Faculty at all four institutions were quite articulate and clear about these matters.

2. How does the capstone experience benefit the student and the faculty mentor? Students at the four institutions generated similar lists of benefits from the capstone experience. Although the extent or degree of the benefit varied by type of project, by department, and by student, all students seemed to have learned or gained from the capstone:

• how to choose, design, and independently complete a research project • how to manage a large, complex, and long duration project • self-sufficiency and perseverance; learning from problems and failures • advanced research, analysis, writing and presentation skills • practicing and doing (not just studying) their discipline • increased confidence in their academic abilities, and a general feeling of accomplishment of

a difficult task Most students believed that the degree of independence, self-direction, ownership and personal responsibility required made the capstone a uniquely beneficial educational experience. While all students believed that they benefited from the capstone, the benefits varied with the type of project and with student motivation levels. Consequently, the students who choose their own topic, designed a challenging project, and worked over a long period of time (a full year or more) typically felt they gained more than the students who took a course or faculty topic met the minimal requirements and completed the project in one semester or term. Faculty participants on all four campuses were uniformly positive about serving students as capstone advisors, some claiming it is their “favorite” or “most enjoyable” part of their job. At two institutions, Allegheny and Wooster, three or four faculty stated the universal capstones presence and the opportunity to advise undergraduate research was a primary factor in choosing and remaining at their institution. Faculty on each campus identified similar benefits from capstone advising:

• the opportunity to know individual students well, as a fellow scholar (co-learners) and often as a lifelong friend and mentor

• the opportunity to observe student learning “up close and personal” and sharing in “aha” moments of discovery

• learning something new in their field, staying excited about research, and sometimes furthering one’s own research

• having collegial conversations and relationships with students On each campus faculty stated some version of this sentiment: small liberal arts colleges with strong (and universal) undergraduate research capstones allow them to balance their dual passion

Part 8, Page: 10

for research and teaching while working closely with students. This is why many faculty describe advising senior capstone projects as especially enjoyable and satisfying.

3. What are the similarities and differences in how our capstone programs are formulated? The focus group sessions were not designed to address this question directly, as participants were asked to talk about their individual personal experiences and not about the program design and structures. Yet their experiences often made reference to how their programs were formulated, and consequently the set of six focus group sessions did provide a general sense of the similarities and differences among the four institutions. Similarities. The program characteristics similar for all four campuses:

• The senior capstone is a graduation requirement for all students. • There is a general institutional description of the purpose and outcomes for the capstone

program, but each department establishes its own process and procedures. • The capstone is a significant project and experience “built around a one-on-one mentoring

relationship with a faculty member.” • The capstone expects students to take responsibility for the selection, design and execution

of the project, an active learning experience that will engender in students a substantial sense of ownership.

• The capstone builds or draws on knowledge and skills from previous coursework in the discipline (major field of study) and the general education (liberal arts) curriculum.

• For most students the senior capstone is a substantial project requiring advanced research and writing.

These common formulations are sufficient to produce a similar experience for students and faculty across the four institutions. Thus the students and faculty across all institutions provided generally similar responses to the focus group questions.

Differences. Despite the similarity of the capstone experience described, there is not a single senior capstone experience within or among the four schools. This is due to the variability and differences of the program among academic departments and institutions. These differences include:

• Types of projects. Wooster had the least variation, as all students complete a two semester thesis or creative project requiring original research and advanced writing. Allegheny’s capstone is almost as uniform, though research may be original or literature based. At Washington the capstone projects may be original research thesis, a literature based thesis, a public performance or creative work, student teaching portfolio, or a comprehensive exam. Augustana students write a traditional original research thesis, literature based research thesis, case studies, simulations, and internship studies.

• Scale and size of projects. None of the institutions prescribe a universal or standard size for the project, though at Wooster all projects are two semester courses. At the other three schools the duration and credits awarded are determined by individual departments and vary and consequently produce projects of varying size.

• Duration of the capstone experience. A full academic year (three semesters with the Junior Seminar) for all Wooster students; departments determine length at the other three

Part 8, Page: 11

schools, though two semesters is typical at Allegheny and Washington, and one term (10 weeks) is most common at Augustana.

• Reflection as a formal component of the capstone. Only Augustana has a formal written reflection component in the capstone.

• The presentation component. Both Wooster and Allegheny requires all students to pass an oral defense to complete the capstone; at Washington and Augustana many departments also require a defense or some type of presentation.

4. What resources are our colleges providing to support their capstone programs? The focus groups were more concerned with the student, faculty, and staff experience with the capstone, although institutional resources were always a part of the discussion. All four institutions understand that their capstone program, requiring all students to complete a large complex project, and “built around a one to one mentoring relationship” with faculty, is a labor-intensive venture, requiring extensive faculty and staff time. Students believe that the regular individual meetings with the advisor were critical, and that the advisor/ student ratio should remain small. Students at all campuses also recommended that more money be available to support individual projects. Faculty believe that their time is the most important institutional resource for a strong capstone program. Yet faculty work/course load is a problem for only a small number of faculty in the departments with large numbers of majors. The colleges are trying to solve this problem with course release compensation for advising (with advisors per course release rations running from 5/1 to 12/1), though this is a challenge to administer and is expensive. Some departments have consequently moved to seminar and group advising arrangements, reluctantly abandoning the pure on to one advising approach. Capstone support staff (library, writing and academic support center, instructional and information technology) at each institution believe that their academic administration does not know or significantly underestimates the time they devote to supporting capstone students. Furthermore, all support areas are presently stretched and have little or no capacity to provide more assistance to the capstone program.

5. How do faculty and staff perceive and experience the senior capstone? Faculty certainly perceive and experience the capstone in a variety of ways, yet the focus group conversations did describe a generally similar capstone advising experience among faculty across departments and across the four institutions. Faculty focus group participants described their capstone experience as

• positive, enjoyable and rewarding to work individually and closely with motivated engaged students, to observe “learning close up”;

• a significant investment of time and energy, worth it when students succeed and grow (fortunately most students), frustrating when a student struggles or fails;

• consulting or co-teaching, working with students more as colleagues or peers; • a meaningful research experience, a welcome balance to the teaching emphasis of the small

liberal arts college.

While students and faculty advisors are at the center of an intense lengthy educational experience, staff in departments that support capstone students experience the capstone in a more limited and distant way: typically a single session to assist with using a database, or plan an organizational

Part 8, Page: 12

strategy. Where faculty experience a few capstone projects as inside participants, staff get a outsider’s glimpse or two of many projects. Yet support staff at each campus seemed well informed about the capstone program and acutely aware of the student capstone experience. They described the campus capstone cultures much like the students did. Serving more as consultants to the students, support staff had similar observations and recommendations: 1) they saw the variability (between departments) of capstone projects and processes, and therefore suggested better department capstone information and more uniformity among departments; 2) though they feel their work with the capstone program is generally appreciated and valued by students and faculty, much of what they do is less visible, especially to academic administrators; 3) they are presently able to satisfy the needs and demands of the capstone program, but are at their limit.

6. How do students experience the capstone? What are the ranges of capstone experiences for

our students, and what are the conditions and practices that result in the most positive capstone experiences?

The student responses in each of the institutional reports (Appendix) and in section III above summarize student’s description of their capstone experience. The basic components of the capstone experience seem to be similar and universal; all student participants, regardless of academic department or institution, talked about these common elements of the capstone experience:

• It was indeed a capstone experience. Most students described the capstone project as the largest, longest, most challenging, and most difficult academic task of their college career. Unique in all of those ways.

• Personal investment and sense of ownership. The capstone project was personal, and uniquely their own; more than one called it “my baby.” The degree of independence, autonomy, self-direction and self-responsibility was unprecedented: I picked the topic, I shaped the research question, I designed the study, I collected the data, and I wrote the paper.

• I practiced my discipline. I did not study biology, I practiced biology, and I was a biologist. Students understood that this was a different kind of learning, unique among all of their other college courses.

• Satisfaction and sense of accomplishment. Because this was a large, long, challenging, personal, independent and active learning project, it brought students more satisfaction, confidence, and sense of accomplishment.

Variability and range of experience. Although most students have some version of the common experience described above, students also described a variety and range of experiences. Some of the variability is attributable to the inevitable range of differences that students bring to the experience: differences in knowledge, skills and competencies, interest, motivation, and health. However, different capstone experiences seem to be related to the variety in the types of projects, as well as differences in project scale and duration. The focus group discussions described the following types of projects and the corresponding capstone experience:

1. The standard and historically typical type of capstone project with five characteristics: (a) student selected and designed (b) original research study or creative work (c) built around a one to one mentoring relationship with a faculty advisor, a project of (d) substantial size and (e) duration (two semesters or terms) that includes a proposal, data collection, a written report and a presentation or oral defense. Nearly all of the capstone projects at Allegheny and Wooster are of this type, with a smaller percentage at Washington and Augustana. The

Part 8, Page: 13

experience for the student is the result of the cumulative effect of all five characteristics, which students describe as: intense, demanding (the most challenging work they will do in the major and at the college), sometimes frustrating (requiring problem-solving and persistence), requiring advanced research, writing and presentation skills, and ultimately satisfying and confidence building. Students further describe the capstone experience as a unique and singular academic experience of practicing (not just studying) their discipline requiring significant initiative, self-discipline, and organizational skills and challenging them to grow and change, and finally leaving them with a sense of accomplishment and pride. These were the students most likely to be describing a transformative experience.

2. A literature based (rather than original) research project with the other four characteristics. These students describe a similar experience, but with less sense of personal ownership and without practicing their discipline or being a researcher.

3. Literature based research in a capstone course over a single semester or term. Some of these students, without choice of topic or mentoring from an advisor in a shorter single semester, described their project as just a big paper in an upper level course that satisfied a graduation requirement.

4. Case study or problem analysis in internship or student teaching setting. These projects have few of the characteristics of the standard project, and while they may be positive (as they are often viewed as practical) experiences, they are also likely to be experienced as practical course rather than a capstone experience.

5. Comprehensive exam. Although the comps exam can satisfy the capstone requirement in some departments at Washington, it is not a capstone experience as defined in this study.

The different types of projects produce different experiences. At Washington and Augustana (with the variety of capstone types) students were aware and sometimes uncomfortable with the range of project types and experiences. Some felt it wasn’t equitable and fair as they perceived some types to be more work or more difficult than others; others were disappointed that they could not have the “full experience” of the original research, mentored, large and long projects.

What conditions and practices seem to result in the most positive capstone experiences?

• Student choice of topic. The more choice the student felt over his capstone topic and research question, the more motivated and positive they felt about the project. This did not require, however, that the choice be entirely the student’s: students who joined a faculty’s research or were in a themed capstone seminar were able to take a prescribed topic area and choose a sub topic and research question and feel it was a meaningful choice.

• Preparation. Students felt writing intensive courses and methods courses in the first three years prepared them well with the research and writing skills needed for the capstone project. Students also strongly endorsed the junior seminar, particularly when it included choosing the topic, shaping the research question, and presenting a proposal. Students believed that getting started on the project can be particularly difficult to do independently. Faculty and departments can help with a proposal approval processes that assess student readiness and requires plans to address issues.

• The student/advisor relationship. Students suggested that they could have a successful project without a strong advisor relationship, but it was not likely to be a positive capstone experience. Students also suggested that structure and definition at the beginning of the relationship (regular scheduled meetings, explicit discussion of “how we will work together”) is useful.

• Perceptions of the relevancy and usefulness of the capstone. Those students who believed that their project was relevant (it mattered and was important to them) and useful (would

Part 8, Page: 14

help them in the future) were more motivated and positive. The few student participants on each campus who a) did not plan graduate study or employment in their field of study (academic discipline) and b) did not appreciate the broad liberal arts skills they were acquiring or strengthening viewed the project as “just another paper” or “just a graduation requirement”, and were not having a positive experience. Focused only on the content of the project, they saw little value in “learning so much about something I will never use.”

• Motivated students, and advisors who expected and encouraged student initiative, responsibility, and ownership. Faculty thought that although students needed to bring these qualities to the project, they could advise and support students in ways that engendered it.

• Healthy (physically and emotionally) students. The demands of the capstone project require healthy students. This is primarily the student’s responsibility, but faculty and staff can provide support and structure for those at risk and in need.

V. Summary Observations and Recommendations from Teagle Scholar Bruce Colwell The focus group sessions were designed to gather qualitative data about the capstone experience for students, faculty and staff. The institutional sessions also gathered observations and recommendations for improving the capstone program. The lead Teagle Scholar also added a set of observations and recommendations for each institutional report, based on the focus group sessions and meetings with other campus administrators, the campus visit, reading of college web site and provided capstone materials, as well as my twenty-five years of experience as a Senior Associate Dean of Students and senior class dean at small residential liberal arts colleges. Reviewing my four campus visits and this comprehensive report, I offer the following observations and recommendations. 1. Each institution reviews the purpose, principles, and goals of their capstone program. This is

undoubtedly happening with participation in this Teagle assessment project. As each campus capstone program has developed from the departmental rather than institutional level, some focus group participants were uncertain about the institutional description (if there is one) of the capstone. Produce a document for students, faculty, and staff so that all have a common understanding.

2. Each institution reviews the implementation and administration of their capstone program. It is a challenge to coordinate and manage an institution wide program that is designed and operates from many departments. The four college’s Deans/Provosts meet or confer to discuss and share best practices.

3. Each institution considers creating institutional structures and venues to ensure regular campus conversations about the senior capstone. On all four campuses the focus group experience reminded faculty participants how little conversation they have outside of their department about the capstone program.

Part 8, Page: 15

4. Assess and address the variability of experience issue. Examine the variability and range of student capstone experiences, and assess if each provides the capstone educational experience desired for every student.

5. Identify and address the major issues and challenges that emerge from the Teagle Senior Capstone project. From the focus group discussions, the following issues were raised on two or more campuses:

• Preparation. The universal requirement increases the importance of preparing all students

to have a positive and successful capstone experience. • The student-faculty advisor relationship, and related faculty workload issue. Does every

student have a quality mentor relationship, and how do faculty find the time for each student advisee?

• Institutional resources. How can adequate resources (staff and financial support for projects) be devoted to the capstone program?

6. Review the Capstone program and its relationship with a) admissions and b) career

planning. If the universal senior capstone project and experience is a defining feature of the college experience, it takes on particular importance for the selection process (admissions) for prospective students and career planning for graduating students.

7. Consider incorporating this capstone assessment project report into a review of the larger Senior Year Experience. At Wooster and Allegheny students, faculty and staff described a capstone culture that significantly affects the overall senior year experience, and can be problematic for some students. All institutions should design a senior program as thoughtfully and intentionally as they do with the other transition year, the first year. A universally required senior capstone is an important component, if not the centerpiece of the senior year experience.

Bruce W. Colwell

Teagle Assessment Scholar

June 2011

Part 8, Page: 16

blank page

Part 8, Page: 17

Part 8 APPENDICES

Focus Group Methodology

Focus Group Questions

• Students

• Faculty

• Support Staff

Part 8, Page: 18

Focus Group Study Methodology

The focus group questions and methodologies were derived by the campus steering committees in conjunction with conference calls, with answering our research questions as the main objective. The questions were uniform across campuses except that each campus had the option for one local question.

For purposes of uniformity in conducting the groups, consistency in reporting, candid discussions, and a comprehensive report based on knowledge of the groups of all campuses, it was decided to bring in outside experts to conduct the groups. Consequently, the groups were conducted by Teagle Scholars through arrangement with the Center for Inquiry into the Liberal Arts, housed at Wabash College. The lead scholar, Bruce Colwell, was the common denominator at all four campuses. At each campus he was assisted by Teagle Scholars that varied due to availability.

Our focus groups were targeted for about 7‐10 participants each, and at each campus one support staff, three student, and two faculty focus groups were conducted. Student participants were invited through random sampling stratified by academic major and balanced by gender and across GPA levels. Separate student focus groups were held for students from the natural sciences, social sciences and humanities. All faculty were invited to participate, with volunteers selected to be representative by academic division. Because we felt junior and senior faculty might have different views and untenured faculty might be less likely to speak candidly in the presence of senior faculty, separate focus groups were held for tenured and untenured faculty. To induce participation, faculty focus groups were held in conjunction with lunch or with refreshments, and students were offered a monetary incentive along with pizza.

Part 8, Page: 19

Student Focus Group Questions

1. Capstone Topic Selection. We are looking for information on how students select the

topic they pursue for their capstone project. Are there factors in topic selection that will help to engage the student through challenges in researching and writing, and is doable given the student’s skills is an important factor in ‘success’ of the student’s experience.

• How was your capstone topic selected? • Now that you are approaching the end of your capstone, how do you feel about the

subject of your capstone? Has it been what you expected? Has it continued to engage you?

2. Capstone Preparation. We are interested in knowing how prepared students feel they

are for their capstone. There are at least two dimensions to this: academic preparation (do they have sufficient academic and disciplinary background to pursue their topic, do they understand the research process) and developmental (do they have the discipline, organization and time management skills to take on a large project).

• How well prepared were you for your capstone project? • What prepared you for it or could have prepared you better for it?

Possible follow‐up: If you weren’t prepared, how did that affect your capstone? What adjustments did you have to make?

3. Capstone Mentoring. The relationship between student and capstone mentor appears

to be another important factor contributing to the quality of the student’s capstone experience. We wish to know what aspects of that relationship contribute to a ‘good’ experience and to a ‘bad’ experience.

• What do you see as the role of the faculty mentor?

• What has your experience with your mentor been like so far? 4. Capstone Contribution/Uniqueness. The capstone is designed to be a quite different

from what a student experiences in a typical course. The capstone structure emphasizes independent exploration of a topic resulting in a largish project. The hypothesis is that the kinds of gains a student makes, particularly developmental gains, through a capstone are quite different from those had through a normal course.

• Has your capstone experience contributed to your academic or personal development? If so, how?

• Is this different from what you have experienced in a regular course? How so?

• How has your capstone experience affected your post‐graduate plans?

Part 8, Page: 20

5. Capstone Evaluation. Students can see the value of their capstone quite differently. We want to know more about what students feel are the markers of a ‘successful’ and ‘unsuccessful’ capstone. As all capstones are intended to contribute to lifelong learning, we also wish to know what students think the value of their capstone experience will be in their future for their personal or professional lives.

• In what ways has your capstone been “successful”? “Unsuccessful”? • Do you feel you have ownership of your capstone project? To what extent do you

feel this has been your project?

• What do you anticipate will be the effect of your capstone on your postgraduate plans?

• If you could change the capstone program at XX, what would you change and why?

Part 8, Page: 21

Faculty Focus Group Questions

1. Capstone Purpose and Characteristics. The capstone experience is a significant part of the culture at all four institutions. Three of the institutions have had their capstone in place for decades and the fourth is implementing theirs. For three institutions there has been time for ‘drift’ in thinking about the role of the capstone and what makes for a ‘successful’ capstone, while the fourth institution is still in the process of forming its thinking on these issues.

a. What is the contribution of the capstone in an undergraduate’s education at XX? b. What are the characteristics of a “successful” capstone experience for a student? What

contributes to a successful experience? What are the characteristics of an “unsuccessful” experience? What contributes to an unsuccessful experience?

c. What are the consequences of requiring all students to complete a capstone? Do all students benefit equally?

2. Capstone Advising Impact. We know anecdotally that capstone advising has emotional and intellectual benefits for faculty. We also know that there are tradeoffs to be made. We want to know what these benefits and tradeoffs are and how well prepared faculty members are to advise capstones.

a. What is the role of the faculty mentor in advising a senior capstone project? b. What are the benefits to mentors of advising capstones? What are the challenges?

What are the tradeoffs and/or disadvantages? c. Senior faculty version: What advice would you give new faculty about being an advisor?

Junior faculty version: What advice do you wish you had received when you began to advise capstones?

3. Capstone Future. There are aspects of the capstone faculty cherish, but there are other aspects faculty might like to see changed. That the capstone is ingrained in the cultures of our institutions makes change difficult. A component of the proposal to the Teagle foundation was the promise to suggest improvements and to explore their development.

a. What should the capstone program’s future be? Would changes would you like to see? What are the obstacles to making any changes?

b. Anything else you would like to tell us?

Part 8, Page: 22

Support Departments Focus Group Questions

1. Capstone Support. Seniors have available to them a wide variety of services to help them with their senior capstone. Of course, many of these services are available to them prior to the capstone. We want to know more about the nature of the services provided, whether they are sufficient, and the extent to which these departments are supported in their work.

a. What is the contribution of the capstone in an undergraduate’s education at XX? b. What services does your department provide to support the capstone (directly or

indirectly)? c. At what stage of the capstone are you most likely to be asked for help? At what

stage is your help likely to be the most effective? d. In what areas do you see seniors needing the most help? Where are they the

strongest, generally? e. Have you seen changes over time in the kinds of needs students have? f. Do students bring you questions or issues for which you are not prepared? Do you

have the resources you need to support the capstone? g. What are the workload consequences of supporting the capstone? h. How would you characterize your capstone‐related interactions with students? Are

these different from other kinds of interactions? How would you characterize your capstone‐related interactions with faculty mentors?

i. Is your contribution in support of capstones recognized and valued? If so, in what ways?

2. Capstone Future. The faculty has ideas about how to improve the capstone. Support faculty

and staff have a different perspective on the capstone experience, which may lead to a different set of suggestions.

a. What should the capstone program’s future be? Would changes would you like to see? What are the obstacles to making changes?

b. Anything else you would like to tell us?

Part 8, Page: 23

Part 9: Postscript ‐ Thoughts on Conducting a Multi‐Institution Assessment Project

Thoughts on Conducting a Multi‐Institution Assessment Project

Project Goals

Provide a clear, written statement about what the project is to accomplish that is agreed upon by the participating institutions. Maintaining the level of effort needed to sustain the project can be a challenge; having goals that lead to objectives of real value to each participating campus will help sustain interest. A project must have broad institutional appeal to ensure robust participation and longevity when everyone is short on time and money. Seek senior faculty buy‐in.

Project Planning

A planning period, ideally funded by a planning grant, can be instrumental in clarifying positions and resolving differences. They require careful work beforehand so that the time together at a planning meeting is really productive. It is also very helpful to meet your counterparts from the other participating campuses.

Each campus should consult the relevant offices and committees about the project’s goals and its implementation. In some cases approval may be needed; at a minimum it is useful to let campus representatives know about the project.

Project Organization

It is critical to have project leaders who possess good leadership and organizational skills.

There are multiple benefits to having two directors instead of one. This allows for workload sharing, which is especially valuable when one or the other is busy with their regular responsibilities. This also provides a built‐in mechanism for developing ideas and thinking through issues the project will face.

Include a project working group on each campus composed of personnel who can contribute directly to the project’s goals and be champions for the project on their campus. Provide a stipend for faculty. Be clear about what each person will be asked to contribute and be realistic about the time required.

Having outside consultants provides needed expertise and experience, as well as an objective perspective on the project’s goals, implementation and results. It is important to be clear about their responsibilities.

Consider the kinds of data that will be collected and what kinds of analysis will need to be done. Be sure that the project includes personnel who can do the necessary analysis. This can be very time consuming, so if the project will generate a fair bit of data, include a data analyst in the budget. Involving the institutional research offices in this project was critical for their knowledge of data elements and ability to obtain that data from institutional records, as well as to conduct the surveys and assemble the data for our databases.

Personnel Turnover

During a multi‐year project, turnover in participants (faculty, chief academic officers, and institutional research / educational assessment directors) should be anticipated. This may make it more difficult to sustain interest and involvement in the project, but can be mitigated by clear goals and records, and the redundant involvement of multiple persons at each campus.

Workload

It can be difficult to get faculty participation for the amount of work required. This can be addressed in part by being clear about the project goals and the ways a successful project will benefit the institution.

Recognize that this type of assessment effort is complicated and time consuming and can be especially demanding of the institutional research and educational assessment personnel on each campus. Be realistic about how much time they will be able to devote to the project.

Consider how much assessment is enough. Don’t collect any more data than the project needs to in order to answer its questions. As more questions are raised, the tendency is to keep adding to survey instruments, for example, and they expand to the presumed tolerance level of the responders.

Communication

Provide clear, concise and timely communication among project participants. It is important to keep everyone updated on what is happening and to remind everyone of deadlines. It is also very important to be clear about who is going to do what and by what date it is to be completed.

Communication between the project working group and the rest of campus is vital to sustaining involvement. This might be done through email, a newsletter, or announcements at faculty meetings.

Make use of technology to communicate and share. Tools we found particularly useful: Doodle, FreeConferenceCall, email and DropBox. Our use of a wiki was less useful.

Bringing the participants together to talk about what has been learned, what to do next, how to resolve problems, etc. worked well for our project. While participants found the conference calls to be productive, it was the face‐to‐face meetings with all the working groups that were the most productive.

Produce a Project Book containing the survey instruments, a directory of data elements, and the associated analysis, and any conference proceedings. This will be useful for each campus and can serve as a baseline for further assessment.

When sharing data, keep in mind that the working groups will contain specialists who are experienced at sifting through tables of data and non‐specialists who will have difficulty understanding the meaning of the data. Provide data and analysis in a form that all can understand.

Methodology

Describe how the project will meet his goals. Be aware of the validity of the methods chosen; understand their limitations.

Online surveys tools such as SurveyMonkey can be very useful in collecting data, but this requires some expertise and, at peak times, can be very time‐consuming. Useful

Using outside personnel to run focus groups is a helpful way to provide some measure of anonymity to participants, who can be more candid, and to provide consistency across campuses.

Institutional Research Boards

In a multi‐institution study, meeting the requirements of the various IRBs can be a problem. Early contact with the IRB chairs can be helpful to review the overall project, and when preliminary versions of surveys and methods are available. Many problems can be avoided by constructing a master set of documents that address IRB issues, are uniform for all campuses, and that and can be appended to all IRB approval submissions. Particularly helpful is a statement of understanding about research methods and practices that affect confidentiality and anonymity of survey or focus group participants and the security of data. In addition to avoiding duplication of effort, this avoids later confusion as to what was approved.

Helpful Uses of Technology

Doodle. Doodle.com provides a web based tool that was excellent for finding a time for conference calls. Each participant can log in and indicate availability for each of a range of time slots displayed as a simple matrix. The best time slot is then easy to spot.

FreeConferenceCall. FreeConferenceCall.com provides a logistical tool for conducting conference calls. It provides a common phone number where each participant can dial in independently to join a conference, even leave and come back if necessary. It is free except that normal long distance phone charges may apply. This is much better than using the PBS service that many campuses have that allows conference calls by manually dialing and linking in each participant from a single phone.

DropBox. Dropbox is a cloud based directory service that allows multiple participants to share a common directory of files for reading and/or editing. Rights can be controlled and granted to as needed. The directory is web accessible so can be used from work, home, or when traveling. One problem is that there is no built in way to know if someone else is editing a file, so we developed a system of moving a file to a “checked‐out” directory during editing. We used this for non‐confidential documents only.

Survey Monkey. Survey Monkey is a well known, inexpensive on‐line survey tool. It worked well for us but had some quirks, and a new user should do a thorough trial run, including translating the responses into SPSS or other analysis package. In particular, “all of the above” type questions and responses from pull‐down lists need special processing before analysis. An

important feature we used, since we needed to link data from multiple surveys (student pre‐capstone, student post‐capstone, faculty mentor ….), was to assign each capstone a unique ID key that could be added to the URL of an email survey invitation and echoed back as part of the results data file.

Excel and SPSS. We used Microsoft Excel for preparing survey data for import to SPSS. Some very useful features are the filtering capability (occasionally in conjunction with the subtotal functions, which recomputes totals, counts, or averages based on the filtered dataset when using the “subtotal” function), and the vlookup and hloookup functions. For instance the vlookup function was used to link together the data from various surveys for a capstone using a capstone ID. SPSS was used for the analysis, and results exported to Excel for production of the final reports, where formatting and additional processing are easier. A general technique that was successfully used was to export the SPSS output to an Excel spreadsheet, paste this into a separate tab in an Excel workbook and extract data from it using the vlookup function. Once set up this allows rerunning the SPPS data after changes to the data or for different subsets of the data and simply replacing the SPSS output with a paste operation. The vlookup requires identifying the row of data to be extracted with a unique identifier, which we found could be done fairly simply using three columns added to the left of the SPSS output that cascaded concatenations to identify the SPSS output table (MEANS, ANOVA, CORRELATIONS, etc.) and the SPSS variable name. Extracting SPSS columns to Excel and back to use Excel’s data manipulation functions and other capabilities works very well, except for open‐ended text survey responses from Survey Monkey, where invisible text characters may mess things up. In general, be wary of including open‐ended survey responses in SPSS files, at least if from Survey Monkey. In working with four schools, we found that working with different versions of Excel was a problem. We suggest establishing a single version to be used by all schools.

General Benefits

The project has had some tangible benefits already.

One campus has adapted the assessment instruments created for the project to create a common rubric for evaluating their capstones.

Working with three other similar schools has been valuable, not only for assessment generally and the capstone specifically, but for the general collaboration and informal time for sharing ideas, problems, and visions. As is always true, part of the benefit is simply the networking and sharing of ideas. It helped each campus better understand the work load issues related to capstone and how other institutions handled these complex issues.

Producing concrete action ideas to which each school will commit is valuable. These final steps each school will take on are crucial to the success of the grant. The grant will actually make a difference in each campus’s capstone program.

Developing a better understanding of strengths and weakness of our programs compared to others. It is very useful to get out of the institutional bubble and to see things more holistically.

Identifying problems common to all institutions and potential solutions or the search of these solutions. We are all struggling with how to accommodate relatively weaker students to

successfully complete their capstone as this increases faculty workload tremendously. In addition programs that have a large number of majors create faculty workload issues as well, especially sustainability of the capstone.

The overall findings of the study emerged through a considerable amount of noise and variation among schools, disciplines, and practices. However, the project demonstrates that hypotheses about pedagogies in higher education can be empirically studied.

The characteristics of a successful capstone identified by the project provide a set of best practices that have utility for other institutions.

PART 10: GENERAL APPENDICES

Grant Proposal: “Transformative Experiences in the Liberal Arts”

Wabash Visit Note (Notes from a review of the data with Charlie Blaich)

Fall 2011 Conference Proceeding Notes

Survey Instruments

• Pre‐Capstone Student Survey • Pre‐Capstone Faculty Survey • Post‐Capstone Student Survey • Post‐Capstone Mentor Survey • Departmental Policies and Administration Survey • Capstone Description Survey

Statement of Understanding for Confidentiality

Part 10, Page: 1

blank page

Part 10, Page: 2

Capstone Experience Proposal Page 1 of 29

The Senior Capstone: Transformative Experiences in the Liberal Arts

A Proposal to The Teagle Foundation submitted by Allegheny College, Augustana College, Washington College, and The College of Wooster

Contact Information: Timothy Schermer Director of Institutional Research Augustana College Rock Island, IL 61201

Prelude: Results from the Planning Grant

We began work on this project with the idea of constructing a single instrument to assess the learning outcomes of the capstones at the four institutions. However, as we worked through the initial proposal we saw other opportunities, which the planning grant process allowed us to explore in more depth. The interrelationship of two key insights that emerged from our discussions changed the direction of our proposal.

The first insight was that each institution regarded its capstone as a transformative experience whose full impact will not be realized until years after graduation. The second insight was that our four institutions provide different models for a capstone course (see Appendix A for a description of the four capstones). A consequence of these insights was the belief that a single capstone assessment instrument would be very difficult to create and would not capture the richness of the experiences of students and faculty mentors. We also saw that there were a host of experiential aspects of our capstones that were important to explore as key components of the learning for both students and faculty.

Rather than being dismayed or dejected by these insights, we realized that they suggested a different approach: to explore how the different constructions of a single concept can all lead to rich learning experiences for both students and faculty. We believe that this approach will complement other Teagle-supported studies (e.g., the Wabash National Study, the Five Colleges of Ohio Creative and Critical Thinking project, the Measuring Intellectual Development and Civic Engagement through Value-Added Assessment project led by Augustana College, and the Hampshire Senior Thesis project).

In exploring this idea, we were helped enormously by previous studies done by our two consultants. David Lopatto’s work on undergraduate research (UR) has shown that students participating in UR opportunities not only develop highly valued skills, but also experience a changed sense of self and place within their disciplinary community. Charlie Blaich's preliminary findings from the Wabash Study provide evidence that there are greater learning differences within institutions than between institutions.

Our question thus became how could we learn what works best in the capstones, within our colleges and across them, and how could we use that knowledge to improve them and to create models of best practice others might adapt or adopt at a time when undergraduate research has become the most dynamic pedagogy in US higher education? Hence we shifted our efforts from pursuing the creation of a single instrument towards a "thicker" and more

Part 10, Page: 3


holistic case-study approach that looks at learning outcomes, process, infrastructure, and opportunity costs.

Proposal

Allegheny College, Augustana College, Washington College, and The College of Wooster are distinctive in that they require all students to engage in a capstone experience built around a one-on-one mentoring relationship with a faculty member.1 For each of us, institutional culture is significantly shaped by this involvement, and strategic thinking and decision-making are fundamentally influenced by the existence of the universal capstone program. Thus these programs are of singular importance to us, and we invest heavily in them because we believe them to be fundamental to the development of our students. At the same time, however, it is also true that we have an incomplete understanding of the nature, costs, and benefits of this investment.

We believe that the senior capstone experience is transformative and lays a foundation for lifelong creativity, learning, and reflection in a way that no other curricular experience provides. However, we have only limited indirect evidence2 and a history of anecdotal information to support these beliefs. We know that there is variation in the way students experience the capstone, but we do not know the reasons for that variation. We need to identify what contributes to a positive capstone experience. We believe the experience is transactional and that the faculty mentor can gain from the interaction just as the student does, and we want to learn about the impact capstone supervision has on the mentors.

Clearly, each institution devotes substantial resources to support its capstone. We would like to have a better understanding of what those costs are, including the opportunity cost. We recognize that there is more than one way to implement a successful capstone program, as the four institutions in this study demonstrate. It would be valuable to identify elemental commonalities that contribute to successful outcomes.

There has been a growing belief in American higher education that undergraduate research is an especially valuable form of learning because it provides an authentic context for the development of a broad range of skills associated with common educational goals (e.g., communication,

1 Allegheny College recently polled more than 100 nationally-ranked liberal arts colleges and found that only 16 institutions require all students to engage in a capstone experience. 2 The College of Wooster surveyed seniors at Wooster and three other colleges in 2008 and found that Wooster students responded favorably and significantly differently from the other colleges. It also found that Independent Study allowed them to think critically and to be creative in ways that they would otherwise not be able. See The Five

Colleges of Ohio Creative and Critical Thinking: Assessing the Foundations of a Liberal Arts Education, 2008, report to the Teagle Foundation prepared by Nancy Grace and Sarah Murnen.

Part 10, Page: 4


critical and creative thinking, technology fluency and information fluency). This belief has been supported by an emerging body of research on the impact of UR experiences upon learning and attitudes (Lopatto, D., 2004; Seymour, E., et al, 2004; Bauer, K.W., et al, 2003; Kardash, C.M., 2000). What these studies show is that students make gains both in the development of skills and in areas that contribute to lifelong learning (Lopatto, D., 2006). These “dispositional” lifelong learning outcomes point to habits of mind that students are more inclined to use following a high quality UR experience. These studies, however, are based mainly in the natural and life sciences, mathematics, and engineering fields, and they concentrate primarily on summer research programs, honors research programs, or research programs for a limited number of undergraduates. By contrast, little formal research3 has been conducted on capstone experiences, and even less has been done on capstones required of all students. This study will help to fill that gap and add to the emerging literature on undergraduate research. Studying the practices and measuring selected outcomes of our capstone programs will have multiple benefits both for our institutions and for the wider understanding of capstone experiences. We will benefit from being more informed about the value of programs in which we invest an enormous amount of resources and significant cultural capital, and from learning how best to develop the capstone experience in response to assessment data. Most importantly, our project will shed light on the educational benefits of undergraduate capstone projects for all students and provide four case studies of the implementation of a required capstone that will enrich the national conversation about the experience and its significance in undergraduate education. A four-year research project is thus proposed with the following overall goals:

• To assess the degree to which a universal capstone contributes to outcomes that lead to lifelong learning. We have identified the following outcomes as possibilities to investigate: Being able to plan and conduct an intellectually demanding project Creative and critical thinking/problem solving skills

Independence in thought, action and initiative Tolerance for obstacles, ambiguities; perseverance

Information fluency skills Time management skills Leadership/teamwork Acceptance of responsibility

3 Some proprietary studies have been conducted (e.g. Robert E. Shoenberg conducted an assessment of the Senior Thesis Program at Bates College in June, 2000, and as part of Allegheny College’s self-study in 2004 during its re-accreditation process it devoted a full chapter to its Senior Project) and less formal research (e.g. Bonthius, Robert E., Davis, F. James, and Drushal, J. Garber, 1957, The Independent Study Program in the United States, New York: Columbia University Press.)

Part 10, Page: 5


Developing an understanding of one’s self and one’s interests and capabilities Career path clarification and commitment Development of an interest in research Development of an interest in higher level cognition Growth of intellectual self-confidence Critical reflection on one’s own perspective

Understanding of the nature of research and how knowledge is constructed More sophisticated understanding of research practice in a discipline More sophisticated epistemological understanding of how things are known Awareness of the interrelationship of knowledge Valuing different points of view

• To identify capstone program components and characteristics at each institution by refining the inventory developed during the planning grant. This inventory will include institutional resources and program elements that create the institutional infrastructure for the program. Data gathered through the completed inventories will provide a framework (costs, benefits, and opportunity cost) for potential change for each of the four institutions.

• To identify features of the capstone – from a combination of the program components and the experiences and characteristics of students and faculty mentors – producing positive experiences. This information will be used to describe best practices, and to inform program planning, and can be used as models for the development of capstone programs at other institutions.

• To distinguish variations in program characteristics, experiences, and outcomes across institutions and disciplines, and for specific segments of students (e.g., by academic profile, discipline, gender) and to gather enough information so that we can identify a range of experiences more likely to create consistently successful outcomes.

Research and Analytic Questions

Each research is question will be explored through multiple assessment instruments, which are described in the methodology section that follows.

1. What is the impact of the capstone experience on outcomes leading to lifelong learning? What is the perceived impact one, five and five-plus years after graduation?

2. How does the capstone experience benefit the student and the faculty mentor? 3. What are the similarities and the differences in how our capstone programs are

formulated?


Part 10, Page: 6






Methodology This project will apply quantitative and qualitative methods in three phases. In the first phase we will gather mostly quantitative summary measures. These findings will be used to guide the second phase, which will involve a more in-depth qualitative study consisting of interviews with alumni and focus groups with students, faculty and others involved with our institutions’ capstone programs. The third phase will the work of “closing the loop” by making recommendations for enhancing our capstone programs based on the findings from the analyses of the first two phases of the study, and pursuing implementation of projects based on these recommendations. Preparation (spring 2009)

During the spring of the 2008-09 academic year we will develop or adapt several basic instruments designed to answer the research questions. These instruments will be administered to students and faculty mentors in the first full year (2009-10) and repeated with a new cohort of students and faculty mentors in the second full year (2010-11). An important part of this development process will be to identify the sub-areas within our three main outcomes listed above that we are best able to assess within our methodological framework and to design an appropriate approach for each instrument. Approval from each institution’s Human Subjects Review Committee will be received before applying any instruments.

The following is the list of assessment resources to be developed during the preparation period:

• Institutional capstone inventory: We will refine the inventory checklist developed during the planning grant to explore the structures and resources at the institutional and departmental levels. Our initial inventory done during the planning grant revealed a great variety of capstone approaches taken between and within institutions and, consequently, the need for a revised capstone inventory. The survey will have a section on institutional information to be completed by the relevant administrators, and a section to be completed by all participating academic departments to identify similarities and differences across departments. The instrument will also capture similarities and differences across and within the institutions. A component of the survey will ask administrators and departments to comment on the opportunity cost in their areas to support a required capstone.

This instrument addresses research questions: 3 and 4

Part 10, Page: 7


• Student record database: We will identify data elements from our institutional student records that are relevant to our research questions and design a database for analysis. The obvious candidates are student background items such as SAT/ACT scores, GPAs, gender, parental education levels, etc.

This instrument addresses research questions: 1, 2, 4 and 6

• Pre-capstone student survey: This survey instrument will capture basic background and other pre-capstone information about each (rising) senior. Suggested items to be included are the students’ self assessment of their academic and personal abilities or skills, their level of interest/motivation for doing the capstone, their post-graduate career or graduate school interest, their major life objectives, and their level of enjoyment of the higher level cognitive activities generally associated with capstone projects, as measured by the Need for Cognition Scale. We intend to adapt survey items from existing sources such as the CIRP, CSS, NSSE, SURE-II and the Wabash National Study to provide national comparative data.


• Post-capstone student survey: The post-capstone student survey will be designed as a repeat of the pre-capstone survey, but with the addition of a section focusing on the capstone-related experiences of students, including basic items such as the discipline of the capstone, degree of integration across disciplines, hours per week devoted to the capstone, contact hours with the faculty mentor, selection of the capstone topic (student selected or faculty assigned), selection of the faculty mentor (student selected or departmentally assigned), as well as other experiences to be determined. Additionally, we will ask for the students’ self-assessment of their growth in a number of general knowledge, skill, and ability areas, and the contribution of the capstone to their growth.

This instrument addresses research questions: 1, 2, 5, and 6

• Pre-capstone faculty report: We will design an instrument for the faculty mentor, or other faculty member familiar with the student’s most recent work in his/her major, to provide an assessment of the student’s cognitive engagement as demonstrated in work done prior to beginning the senior capstone. The instrument will be based on the Mentored Advanced Project (MAP) Form developed by David Lopatto, Grinnell College, and grounded in the reflective judgment development theories of Marcia Baxter Magolda.


• Post-capstone faculty report: The post-capstone faculty report will be completed by the faculty mentors and will include the pre-capstone items based on the MAP. It will also ask faculty mentors to report the student’s grade on the capstone along with a small number of general evaluation questions relating to the capstone as a product and the processes used by the student.


Part 10, Page: 8


• HEDS Alumni survey: We will design a module of questions to be added to the Higher Education Data Sharing (HEDS) consortium’s Alumni Survey focusing on the retrospective judgments of alumni (five years out and beyond) concerning the value and impact of the capstone experience. The main alumni survey will be used to gather additional information about alumni evaluations of their undergraduate experiences and details of their career and graduate school histories. Data from peer liberal arts colleges also using the HEDS Alumni Survey will provide the opportunity for comparative data from alumni without a capstone experience, or with alternative types of experiences such as honors programs.

This instrument addresses research questions: 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6

• Alumni phone interview protocol: We will design the protocol for conducting brief phone interviews with samples of seniors from the 2009-10 graduating class about nine months after graduation. The questions and protocol for the interviews will focus on the short term impacts of the capstone experience on graduate school or career choices and preparation.

This instrument addresses research questions: 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6

All instruments contribute directly or indirectly to answering Research Questions 7 and 8. Reviewing and finalizing the project instruments and resolution of implementation issues will be done electronically in spring 2009. The project co-directors will each visit two of the participating campuses to discuss the project and its instruments, and to answer questions. An additional activity is the development of a project Web site where our procedures and results will be posted. This site will serve as a clearinghouse for information, models, best practices, assessment tools, and advice for other institutions that are considering creating their own programs of capstone undergraduate research and creative projects. Phase 1: Quantitative Investigation (2009-10)

In 2009-10 we will administer the pre-capstone faculty report and the pre-capstone student survey early in the fall term. The post-capstone student and faculty post-capstone report will be administered near the end of the academic year. The capstone inventory and HEDS Alumni Survey will be administered in the fall and spring, respectively. The resulting data will be analyzed during the summer and fall of 2010; the analysis will focus on a basic summary of the results of the various instruments, including pre- and post-change measures based on the pre- and post-capstone student surveys and pre- and post-capstone faculty reports. The analysis, which will likely continue throughout the entire project, will be designed to explore our research questions using a merged multi-institutional unit-record database for the students participating in the study.

Part 10, Page: 9


Phase 2: Qualitative Investigation (2010-11)

Building on the data gathered in the first phase, in 2010-11 the focus will shift toward the qualitative analysis and the construction of case studies exploring the capstone programs at our four institutions. Activities will include:

• Ongoing analyses of the data collected in 2009-10.

• A repeat of the student and faculty surveys/reports with the 2010-11 senior capstone students and faculty mentors.

• Preliminary findings of the initial analyses of the data collected in 2009-10 will be presented at a workshop of representatives from the four institutions to be held in the late summer or early fall of 2010. Findings also will be posted to the project’s Web site. An additional objective of the workshop will be to formulate the protocol guidelines for a series of interviews and/or focus group meetings to explore the capstone experiences of students, faculty mentors, and others (librarians, information technology personnel, department chairs, and faculty development administrators who provide support for capstone programs).

• Capstone Focus Group Visits. We will send a four-person team to each institution during the spring of 2010-11 to conduct the interviews and/or focus groups using the protocols and questions developed in the summer / fall 2010 workshop. The interviews/focus groups will be recorded for future reference, but each team will have at least one scribe whose notes will form the basis of a written report that will be completed by the last day of the focused visit at each institution. The report will be discussed in an exit interview with the Campus Steering Committee representatives of the visited institution.

This instrument addresses research questions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6

• A follow-up phone survey of a sample of the graduating seniors from 2009-10 will be conducted to explore early capstone impacts relating to career and graduate school choices and preparation. Current students will be trained to interview the sample of recently graduated students.

This instrument addresses research questions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6

Part 10, Page: 10


Phase 3: Closing the Loop (2011-12)

The focus in 2011-12 will be on using the results to gain a comprehensive understanding of our capstones, to recommend improvements to the programs, and to explore how those improvements might be implemented. The resulting case studies will be summarized and distributed via a clearinghouse Web site and/or as a monograph. Final-year project activities and deliverables will include the following:

• During the summer of 2011, a comprehensive review of the collected data will be conducted, including the analysis of the pre-/post capstone instruments just completed in the spring and the focus group reports.

• A written summary of the four case studies with our general findings will be distributed to the four campuses for further dissemination and discussion. Each institution will explore ways to integrate this capstone assessment into its regular assessment cycle to promote continuous improvement.

• In the fall of 2011, the project co-directors, the campus steering committees, the project consultants, and representatives from the Teagle-funded Hampshire project will be invited to attend a workshop to review and discuss the project findings. In addition to providing a venue for discussing the results and sharing with the Hampshire project, the workshop will provide an avenue for each college to identify one or more capstone improvement projects.

• Building on the project findings and workshop discussion, each institution will develop a plan to implement one or more of the improvements suggested by the study. Because these capstones are such an important part of our cultures, changes come slowly and only after careful consideration and extensive consultation. Consequently, planning for improvements will occur in the final year of the project, with the implementation and assessment to begin in the first year following the project. We may pursue proposals for additional external funding to further explore aspects of our capstones revealed by the study and/or to implement additional improvements to our capstones.

• The project Web site will be updated with the case studies and other new material.

• Materials will be developed for use in internal and external professional presentations.

Part 10, Page: 11

Annotated Wabash Visit Notes Page 1

Interesting Findings / Observations from the Year 1 Data – June 30 Wabash Meeting

These notes are from a review of the campus visit focus group reports and comment analysis from the 2009/10 post‐capstone surveys of students and faculty. Participating in the review were Charlie Blaich, Teresa Ford, Simon Gray, and Tim Schermer. The notes here have been annotated (material in italics) following a conversation with David Lopatto.

1. There is relatively little difference between outcomes by institution given what appear to be large differences in the structures of the programs. Benefits may be inelastic relative to costs/efforts.

Caution: We should look at our NSSE data to see if there is a big difference that we have not accounted for in the senior year experience. We could substitute ‘robust’ for ‘inelastic’. We don’t have a robust project design, but despite all the differences between the institutions, it is a good result that we see relatively little difference across the institutions. This goes to the central construct and can allow us to say that there is a learning experience called “the capstone” without having to talk about “the capstone at X institution”.

2. A halo effect is apparent in the faculty scales of student performance. The ratings that faculty members provide are highly correlated and show little differentiation. The faculty ratings are lower than the student body, but faculty largely like what they see and their ratings are undifferentiated – they pretty much like everything the students have done. I found something like this in my work on undergraduate research. Students who liked their experience were generous in the evaluation across a series of items and students who did not have a good experience were less generous. But, we can still look at smaller differences. For example, when women evaluated their summer experience they were more liberal in their evaluation than men. I flipped the data set and created a data set of z‐scores (it was a lot of work). When I did this, the gender effect was 0 and a different picture emerged. This also revealed a genuine difference in men and women; that women came out with greater self‐confidence.

3. There are differences in the perceptions of the experiences given by students and faculty. For example, faculty said that writing skills improved, but students felt there was no improvement. There are some between institution differences here, more so in the student data than the faculty data. My first impression is that this is counter‐intuitive. According to Tim this may not hold up in the two year data; he will check this more closely. It is a good outcome if they agree. If they disagree, this is interesting because typically the student over‐rates his/her ability.

4. Even over a four year experience the changes that can be observed in some areas are minimal and it is unrealistic to expect significant changes in scales such as “need for cognition”, “independent voice”, “persistence”, and “rating striver” resulting from a relatively short capstone experience. Although a capstone is a high impact activity, we must remember that it is part of a larger college experience. No surprises here. There are some developmental changes that happen over an extended period and aren’t likely to appear immediately after a capstone experience. However, see comment with Note 6.

5. There is a misperception that the development of academic skills in a disciplinary context will transfer in the short term to other contexts: habits of minds, personality, extra‐disciplinary contexts.

Part 10, Page: 12


I call this transfer of training. There is some discouraging research that suggests this kind of transfer occurs less often than we think.

6. However, it may be that the capstone serves as an essential foundation for future learning. This is the ‘boot camp’ effect. I think of this as the precursor effect. As an example, people who are sad are encouraged to eat chocolate. Now, chocolate does not contain any serotonin, the chemical that will help with the sadness. But what eating chocolate will do is help to produce serotonin; it is a precursor that leads to the desired result. We hope that what students get through a capstone experience is a precursor that will lead to longer term benefits.

7. Self‐reported gains reflect general satisfaction with the capstone experience and don’t necessarily correlate with direct measures of gains in scholarly skills. This is not a bad outcome and is certainly better than students indicating they had bad experiences! We can relate this back to Note 2. There are results on psychological literature that describe the main personality traits people display indicate that having an openness to new experiences and challenges is affected by mood. Happy people are more likely to take on something new. So, maybe we are getting generous measure in the post‐surveys because the students are happy; they had a good capstone experience. Looking for the after‐effect of the capstone experience, a really good experience sets the student up to take on a new challenge, whereas they are less willing to try something else if they had a terrible experience.

8. There were big gains in Research Orientation, Scholarly Skills, Project Management, and Academic Ability. There was a loss for Multiple Perspectives. For other scales there were gains and losses among individual factors that negated each other, resulting in the overall scale suggesting little evidence of change. This happened for Civic Orientation, Need for Cognition, and Higher Order Cognition. I think of this as similar to the difference between low and high fidelity training. If asked to learn how to do a complex task, I am less likely to try to pick up other abilities along the way; all my mental energy is concentrated on mastering something new and complex. Tim thinks we might get a better picture of this if we look at the results for double majors. Simon: We hypothesize that the drop in Multiple Perspectives, which is seen uniformly across campuses, divisions, gender, and gpa ranges, might be because most capstones are really a narrowing experience ‐ the student is encouraged to ask a very specific question and then try to answer it. Couple this with the student’s inexperience with large, unstructured (independent!) projects, and the student has enough on his/her hands trying to get a satisfactory answer to the question that there isn’t the time to investigate broadly. If you also consider that the project is high stakes (you must pass to graduate), then a risk‐averse student may be very reluctant to introduce material not directly and clearly relevant to the question. See the comment on uncertainty with Note 9.

9. We could rank the institutions by intensity of the experience (FTE load for faculty and credit load for students) and relate that to our outcomes / measures. We anticipate that this would show institutional differences. We can envision several notions of ‘intensity’. The intensity for students (“I was so nervous! I was so worried!”) might not correlate with workload; that is, emotional responses may be out of proportion to actual hours spent.

Part 10, Page: 13


Is this doable? Can we operationalize this for faculty or students? What is the relationship of learning gains to level of stress?

Simon wondered if uncertainty plays a role here. From a student’s perspective there is a fair bit of certainty in a regular course; the structure is provided and you can gauge how you are doing by keeping track of your grades as the term progresses. With a capstone, the structure is not all laid out for you at the start, you lack experience knowing how much time each component will take, and you don’t know if the approach you are taking to each component will pan out. Combining this uncertainty with the fact that the capstone is high stakes (you need to pass to graduate) can produce for some students a more intense and stressful experience. Dave: this is touching on metacognition. Students often underestimate how much time a task takes; but students who have become experienced at reflecting on their work are better at estimating time and result.

10. Program effects versus good practices effects. How much of the favorable effects that we see are due

to the capstone program structures themselves versus the internal good practices of instruction that is experienced in different kinds of programs? What is it about the capstone that leads to favorable outcomes? This is what Charlie is seeing in the WNS. The thought is that maybe the capstone is just the vehicle for good practices to occur. Good teachers have hit on good practices within each capstone model. We should look for good practices within each campus; that is, those that are particularly effective for each model.

11. Surprises: Multiple Perspectives declined and Grad Schools Plans declined. Diminished interest seen in the StatusCareerOrientation scale – for example, the item “Becoming accomplished in my field of expertise.” Is this necessarily a bad thing? Negative finding for support services. Anomalies in Washington data generally. We should look closely at the Augie data with respect to reflection component. Is the emphasis on reflection at Augustana seen in the student and mentor responses? Tim: I’m going to question this. There may be a data problem in differentiating the pool of respondents. We need to look at this more carefully. Not sure what this really means. What is the benchmark? Consider the experience of asking first year students how many think they will be pre‐med and then how many abandon the idea; there is a benchmark decline. Don’t know where to point you for the benchmark data for our students in this respect. The Big Question: The hardest part is to merge coded qualitative data with quantitative data. It would be useful to group all students who scored a 5 on some interesting item from the surveys (say, “Satisfaction with capstone experience”) and collect their qualitative comments to see if there is something in common. Do that for the 4’s, then the 3’s and so on. If we can tie together the student and mentor results, we have an opportunity to capture the interaction between the mentor and the student. Usually a study has one or the other, not both. This could be very cool.

Part 10, Page: 14

c e: nce s

Documents